idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-15.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 (June 24, 2009) is 5410 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RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 793 (Obsoleted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: December 26, 2009 7 June 24, 2009 9 HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) 10 draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-15.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 December 26, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 83 8. HTTP Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 84 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 85 9.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted . . . . . 23 86 9.2. Protecting responses from modification . . . . . . . . . . 23 87 9.3. Privacy and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 88 10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 89 10.1. HTTPS Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 107 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 45 112 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 117 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). The LIS exists because not all Devices are 177 capable of determining LI, and because, even if a device is able to 178 determine its own LI, it may be more efficient with assistance. This 179 document does not specify how LI is determined. An Access Provider 180 (AP) operates the LIS so that Devices (and Targets) can retrieve 181 their LI. This document assumes that the Device and Access Provider 182 have no prior relationship other than what is necessary for the 183 Device to obtain network access. 185 This document is based on the attribution of the LI to a Device and 186 not specifically a person (end user) or Target, based on the premise 187 that location determination technologies are generally designed to 188 locate a device and not a person. It is expected that, for most 189 applications, LI for the device can be used as an adequate substitute 190 for the end user's LI. Since revealing the location of the device 191 almost invariably reveals some information about the location of the 192 user of the device, the same level of privacy protection demanded by 193 a user is required for the device. This approach may require either 194 some additional assurances about the link between device and target, 195 or an acceptance of the limitation that unless the device requires 196 active user authentication, there is no guarantee that any particular 197 individual is using the device at that instant. 199 The following diagram shows the logical configuration of some of the 200 functional elements identified in [RFC3693] and the LIS defined in 201 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and where this protocol applies, with 202 the Rule Maker and Target represented by the role of the Device. 203 Note that only the interfaces relevant to the Device are identified 204 in the diagram. 206 +---------------------------------------------+ 207 | Access Network Provider | 208 | | 209 | +--------------------------------------+ | 210 | | Location Information Server | | 211 | | | | 212 | | | | 213 | | | | 214 | | | | 215 | +------|-------------------------------+ | 216 +----------|----------------------------------+ 217 | 218 | 219 HELD 220 | 221 Rule Maker - _ +-----------+ +-----------+ 222 o - - | Device | | Location | 223 735 743 744 745 This document (RFC xxxx) defines HELD messages. 746 748 749 751 753 754 755 756 757 758 760 761 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 811 812 813 814 816 817 818 820 821 822 823 824 825 827 828 829 830 832 833 834 835 836 838 840 841 843 844 845 846 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 857 859 860 861 862 863 864 867 869 870 871 872 874 877 879 880 881 882 883 886 888 889 890 891 893 896 898 8. HTTP Binding 900 This section describes the use of HTTP [RFC2616] and HTTP Over TLS 901 [RFC2818] as transport mechanisms for the HELD protocol, which a 902 conforming LIS and Device MUST support. 904 Although HELD uses HTTP as a transport, it uses a strict subset of 905 HTTP features, and due to the restrictions of some features, a LIS is 906 not a fully compliant HTTP server. It is intended that a LIS can 907 easily be built using an HTTP server with extensibility mechanisms, 908 and that a HELD Device can trivially use existing HTTP libraries. 909 This subset of requirements helps implementors avoid ambiguity with 910 the many options the full HTTP protocol offers. 912 A Device that conforms to this specification MAY choose not to 913 support HTTP authentication [RFC2617] or cookies [RFC2965]. Because 914 the Device and the LIS may not necessarily have a prior relationship, 915 the LIS SHOULD NOT require a Device to authenticate, either using the 916 above HTTP authentication methods or TLS client authentication. 917 Unless all Devices that access a LIS can be expected to be able to 918 authenticate in a certain fashion, denying access to location 919 information could prevent a Device from using location-dependent 920 services, such as emergency calling. 922 A HELD request is carried in the body of an HTTP POST request. The 923 Device MUST include a Host header in the request. 925 The MIME type of HELD request and response bodies is 926 "application/held+xml". LIS and Device MUST provide this value in 927 the HTTP Content-Type and Accept header fields.If the LIS does not 928 receive the appropriate Content-Type and Accept header fields, the 929 LIS SHOULD fail the request, returning a 406 (not acceptable) 930 response. HELD responses SHOULD include a Content-Length header. 932 Devices MUST NOT use the "Expect" header or the "Range" header in 933 HELD requests. The LIS MAY return 501 (not implemented) errors if 934 either of these HTTP features are used. In the case that the LIS 935 receives a request from the Device containing a If-* (conditional) 936 header, the LIS SHOULD return a 412 (precondition failed) response. 938 The POST method is the only method REQUIRED for HELD. If a LIS 939 chooses to support GET or HEAD, it SHOULD consider the kind of 940 application doing the GET. Since a HELD Device only uses a POST 941 method, the GET or HEAD MUST be either an escaped URL (e.g., somebody 942 found a URL in protocol traces or log files and fed it into their 943 browser) or somebody doing testing/ debugging. The LIS could provide 944 information in the HELD response indicating that the URL corresponds 945 to a LIS server and only responds to HELD POST requests or the LIS 946 could instead try to avoid any leak of information by returning a 947 very generic HTTP error message such as 404 (not found). 949 The LIS populates the HTTP headers of responses so that they are 950 consistent with the contents of the message. In particular, the 951 "CacheControl" header SHOULD be set to disable caching of any PIDF-LO 952 document or Location URIs by HTTP intermediaries. Otherwise, there 953 is the risk of stale locations and/or the unauthorized disclosure of 954 the LI. This also allows the LIS to control any caching with the 955 HELD "expires" parameter. The HTTP status code MUST indicate a 2xx 956 series response for all HELD locationResponse and HELD error 957 messages. 959 The LIS MAY redirect a HELD request. A Device MUST handle redirects, 960 by using the Location header provided by the server in a 3xx 961 response. When redirecting, the Device MUST observe the delay 962 indicated by the Retry-After header. The Device MUST authenticate 963 the server that returns the redirect response before following the 964 redirect, if a Device requires that the server is authenticated. A 965 Device SHOULD authenticate the LIS indicated in a redirect. 967 The LIS SHOULD support persistent connections and request pipelining. 968 If pipelining is not supported, the LIS MUST NOT allow persistent 969 connections. The Device MUST support termination of a response by 970 the closing of a connection. 972 Implementations of HELD that implement HTTP transport MUST implement 973 transport over TLS [RFC2818]. TLS provides message integrity and 974 confidentiality between Device and LIS. The Device MUST implement 975 the server authentication method described in HTTPS [RFC2818]. The 976 device uses the URI obtained during LIS discovery to authenticate the 977 server. The details of this authentication method are provided in 978 section 3.1 of HTTPS [RFC2818]. When TLS is used, the Device SHOULD 979 fail a request if server authentication fails, except in the event of 980 an emergency. 982 9. Security Considerations 984 HELD is a location acquisition protocol whereby the a client requests 985 its location from a LIS. Specific requirements and security 986 considerations for location acquisition protocols are provided in 987 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. An in-depth discussion of the security 988 considerations applicable to the use of Location URIs and by 989 reference provision of LI is included in 990 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements]. 992 By using the HELD protocol, the client and the LIS expose themselves 993 to two types of risk: 995 Accuracy: Client receives incorrect location information 996 Privacy: An unauthorized entity receives location information 998 The provision of an accurate and privacy/confidentiality protected 999 location to the requestor depends on the success of five steps: 1001 1. The client must determine the proper LIS. 1002 2. The client must connect to the proper LIS. 1003 3. The LIS must be able to identify the device by its identifier 1004 (IP Address). 1005 4. The LIS must be able to return the desired location. 1006 5. HELD messages must be transmitted unmodified between the LIS 1007 and the client. 1009 Of these, only the second, third and the fifth are within the scope 1010 of this document. The first step is based on either manual 1011 configuration or on the LIS discovery defined in 1012 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery], in which appropriate security 1013 considerations are already discussed. The fourth step is dependent 1014 on the specific positioning capabilities of the LIS, and is thus 1015 outside the scope of this document. 1017 9.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted 1019 This document assumes that the LIS to be contacted is identified 1020 either by an IP address or a domain name, as is the case for a LIS 1021 discovered as described in LIS Discovery 1022 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]. When the HELD transaction is 1023 conducted using TLS [RFC5246], the LIS can authenticate its identity, 1024 either as a domain name or as an IP address, to the client by 1025 presenting a certificate containing that identifier as a 1026 subjectAltName (i.e., as an iPAddress or dNSName, respectively). In 1027 the case of the HTTP binding described above, this is exactly the 1028 authentication described by TLS [RFC2818]. If the client has 1029 external information as to the expected identity or credentials of 1030 the proper LIS (e.g., a certificate fingerprint), these checks MAY be 1031 omitted. Any binding of HELD MUST be capable of being transacted 1032 over TLS so that the client can request the above authentication, and 1033 a LIS implementation for a binding MUST include this feature. Note 1034 that in order for the presented certificate to be valid at the 1035 client, the client must be able to validate the certificate. In 1036 particular, the validation path of the certificate must end in one of 1037 the client's trust anchors, even if that trust anchor is the LIS 1038 certificate itself. 1040 9.2. Protecting responses from modification 1042 In order to prevent that response from being modified en route, 1043 messages must be transmitted over an integrity-protected channel. 1044 When the transaction is being conducted over TLS (a required feature 1045 per Section 9.1), the channel will be integrity protected by 1046 appropriate ciphersuites. When TLS is not used, this protection will 1047 vary depending on the binding; in most cases, without protection from 1048 TLS, the response will not be protected from modification en route. 1050 9.3. Privacy and Confidentiality 1052 Location information returned by the LIS must be protected from 1053 access by unauthorized parties, whether those parties request the 1054 location from the LIS or intercept it en route. As in Section 9.2, 1055 transactions conducted over TLS with appropriate ciphersuites are 1056 protected from access by unauthorized parties en route. Conversely, 1057 in most cases, when not conducted over TLS, the response will be 1058 accessible while en route from the LIS to the requestor. 1060 Because HELD is an LCP and identifies clients and targets by IP 1061 addresses, a requestor is authorized to access location for an IP 1062 address only if it is the holder of that IP address. The LIS MUST 1063 verify that the client is the target of the returned location, i.e., 1064 the LIS MUST NOT provide location to other entities than the target. 1065 Note that this is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for 1066 authorization. A LIS MAY deny requests according to any local 1067 policy. 1069 A prerequisite for meeting this requirement is that the LIS must have 1070 some assurance of the identity of the client. Since the target of 1071 the returned location is identified by an IP address, simply sending 1072 the response to this IP address will provide sufficient assurance in 1073 many cases. This is the default mechanism in HELD for assuring that 1074 location is given only to authorized clients; LIS implementations 1075 MUST support a mode of operation in which this is the only client 1076 authentication. 1078 Using IP return routability as an authenticator means that location 1079 information is vulnerable to exposure through IP address spoofing 1080 attacks. A temporary spoofing of IP address could mean that a device 1081 c ould request a Location Object or Location URI that would result in 1082 receiving another Device's location if the attacker is able to 1083 receive packets sent to the spoofed address. In addition, in cases 1084 where a Device drops off the network for various reasons, the re-use 1085 of the Device's IP address could result in another Device receiving 1086 the original Device's location rather than its own location. These 1087 exposures are limited by the following: 1089 o Location URIs MUST have a limited lifetime, as reflected by the 1090 value for the expires element in Section 6.5.2. The lifetime of 1091 location URIs necessarily depends on the nature of the access. 1092 o The LIS and network SHOULD be configured so that the LIS is made 1093 aware of Device movement within the network and addressing 1094 changes. If the LIS detects a change in the network that results 1095 in it no longer being able to determine the location of the 1096 Device, then all location URIs for that Device SHOULD be 1097 invalidated. 1099 The above measures are dependent on network configuration, which 1100 SHOULD be considered. For instance, in a fixed internet access, 1101 providers may be able to restrict the allocation of IP addresses to a 1102 single physical line, ensuring that spoofing is not possible; in such 1103 an environment, additional measures may not be necessary. 1105 10. Examples 1107 The following sections provide basic HTTP/HTTPS examples, a simple 1108 location request example and a location request for multiple location 1109 types example along with the relevant location responses. To focus 1110 on important portions of messages, the examples in Section 10.2 and 1111 Section 10.3 do not show HTTP/HTTPS headers or the XML prologue. In 1112 addition, sections of XML not relevant to the example are replaced 1113 with comments. 1115 10.1. HTTPS Example Messages 1117 The examples in this section show complete HTTP/HTTPS messages that 1118 include the HELD request or response document. 1120 This example shows the most basic request for a LO. The POST 1121 includes an empty "locationRequest" element. 1123 POST /location HTTP/1.1 1124 Host: lis.example.com:49152 1125 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1126 Content-Length: 87 1128 1129 1131 Since the above request does not include a "locationType" element, 1132 the successful response to the request may contain any type of 1133 location. The following shows a response containing a minimal 1134 PIDF-LO. 1136 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1137 Server: Example LIS 1138 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT 1139 Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT 1140 Cache-control: private 1141 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1142 Content-Length: 594 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1154 -34.407 150.88001 1155 1156 1157 1159 2006-01-11T03:42:28+00:00 1160 1161 1162 Wiremap 1163 1164 1165 2006-01-10T03:42:28+00:00 1166 1167 1168 1170 The error response to the request is an error document. The 1171 following response shows an example error response. 1173 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1174 Server: Example LIS 1175 Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:49:20 GMT 1176 Cache-control: private 1177 Content-Type: application/held+xml 1178 Content-Length: 135 1180 1181 1183 Unable to determine location 1184 1185 1187 10.2. Simple Location Request Example 1189 The location request shown below doesn't specify any location types 1190 or response time. 1192 1194 The example response to this location request contains a list of 1195 Location URIs. 1197 1198 1199 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o 1200 1201 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com 1202 1203 1204 1205 An error response to this location request is shown below: 1207 1209 1211 1213 10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types 1215 The following Location Request message includes a request for 1216 geodetic, civic and any Location URIs. 1218 1219 1220 geodetic 1221 civic 1222 locationURI 1223 1224 1226 The corresponding Location Response message includes the requested 1227 location information, including two location URIs. 1229 1230 1231 https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o 1232 1233 sip:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com: 1234 1235 1236 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1245 -34.407242 150.882518 1246 30 1247 1248 1249 1252 AU 1253 NSW 1254 Wollongong 1255 Gwynneville 1256 Northfield Avenue 1257 University of Wollongong 1258 2 1259 Andrew Corporation 1260 2500 1261 39 1262 WS-183 1263 U40 1264 1265 1266 1268 false 1269 1270 2007-05-25T12:35:02+10:00 1271 1272 1273 Wiremap 1274 1275 1276 2007-05-24T12:35:02+10:00 1277 1278 1279 1281 11. IANA Considerations 1283 This document requires several IANA registrations detailed in the 1284 following sections. 1286 11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for 1287 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held 1289 This section registers a new XML namespace, 1290 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held", per the guidelines in 1292 [RFC3688]. 1294 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held 1295 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, 1296 (geopriv@ietf.org), Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1297 XML: 1299 BEGIN 1300 1301 1303 1304 1305 HELD Messages 1306 1307 1308

Namespace for HELD Messages

1309

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

1310 [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX 1311 with the RFC number for this specification.] 1312

See RFCXXXX

1313 1314 1315 END 1317 11.2. XML Schema Registration 1319 This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in 1320 [RFC3688]. 1322 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held 1323 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 1324 Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1325 Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of 1326 Section 7 of this document. 1328 11.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml' 1330 This section registers the "application/held+xml" MIME type. 1332 To: ietf-types@iana.org 1333 Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/held+xml 1334 MIME media type name: application 1335 MIME subtype name: held+xml 1336 Required parameters: (none) 1337 Optional parameters: charset 1338 Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is 1339 UTF-8. 1340 Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit 1341 characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC 1342 3023 [RFC3023], section 3.2. 1343 Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry 1344 protocol data related to the location of an entity, which could 1345 include information that is considered private. Appropriate 1346 precautions should be taken to limit disclosure of this 1347 information. 1348 Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a basis 1349 for a protocol 1350 Published specification: RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please 1351 replace XXXX with the RFC number for this specification.] 1352 Applications which use this media type: Location information 1353 providers and consumers. 1354 Additional Information: Magic Number(s): (none) 1355 File extension(s): .xml 1356 Macintosh File Type Code(s): (none) 1357 Person & email address to contact for further information: Mary 1358 Barnes 1359 Intended usage: LIMITED USE 1360 Author/Change controller: The IETF 1361 Other information: This media type is a specialization of 1362 application/xml [RFC3023], and many of the considerations 1363 described there also apply to application/held+xml. 1365 11.4. Error code Registry 1367 This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for the 1368 HELD protocol including an initial registry for error codes. The 1369 error codes are included in HELD error messages as described in 1370 Section 6.3 and defined in the schema in the 'codeType' token in the 1371 XML schema in (Section 7) 1373 The following summarizes the requested registry: 1375 Related Registry: Geopriv HELD Registries, Error codes for HELD 1376 Defining RFC: RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX 1377 with the RFC number for this specification.] 1378 Registration/Assignment Procedures: Following the policies outlined 1379 in [RFC5226], the IANA policy for assigning new values for the 1380 Error codes for HELD shall be Standards Action: Values are 1381 assigned only for Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. 1383 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 1384 Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com). 1386 This section pre-registers the following seven initial error codes as 1387 described above in Section 6.3: 1389 requestError: This code indicates that the request was badly formed 1390 in some fashion. 1391 xmlError: This code indicates that the XML content of the request 1392 was either badly formed or invalid. 1393 generalLisError: This code indicates that an unspecified error 1394 occurred at the LIS. 1395 locationUnknown: This code indicates that the LIS could not 1396 determine the location of the Device. 1397 unsupportedMessage: This code indicates that the request was not 1398 supported or understood by the LIS. This error code is used when 1399 a HELD request contains a document element that is not supported 1400 by the receiver. 1401 timeout: This code indicates that the LIS could not satisfy the 1402 request within the time specified in the "responseTime" parameter. 1403 cannotProvideLiType: This code indicates that the LIS was unable to 1404 provide LI of the type or types requested. This code is used when 1405 the "exact" attribute on the "locationType" parameter is set to 1406 "true". 1407 notLocatable: This code indicates that the LIS is unable to locate 1408 the Device, and that the Device MUST NOT make further attempts to 1409 retrieve LI from this LIS. This error code is used to indicate 1410 that the Device is outside the access network served by the LIS; 1411 for instance, the VPN and NAT scenarios discussed in 1412 Section 4.1.2. 1414 12. Contributors 1416 James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson and Barbara Stark are the authors 1417 of the original document, from which this WG document was derived. 1418 Their contact information is included in the Author's address 1419 section. In addition, they also contributed to the WG document, 1420 including the XML schema. 1422 13. Acknowledgements 1424 The author/contributors would like to thank the participants in the 1425 GEOPRIV WG and the following people for their constructive input and 1426 feedback on this document (in alphabetical order): Nadine Abbott, 1427 Bernard Aboba, Eric Arolick, Richard Barnes (in particular the 1428 security section), Peter Blatherwick, Ben Campbell, Guy Caron, Eddy 1429 Corbett, Martin Dawson, Lisa Dusseault, Jerome Grenier, Ted Hardie, 1430 Cullen Jennings, Neil Justusson, Tat Lam, Marc Linsner, Patti 1431 McCalmont, Roger Marshall, Perry Prozeniuk, Carl Reed, Julian 1432 Reschke, Eric Rescorla, Brian Rosen, John Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, 1433 Henning Schulzrinne, Ed Shrum, Doug Stuard, Hannes Tschofenig and 1434 Karl Heinz Wolf. 1436 14. Changes since last Version 1438 NOTE TO THE RFC-Editor: Please remove this section prior to 1439 publication as an RFC. 1441 Changes from 14 to 15(Gen-Art and IETF discussion ML comments post 1442 3rd IETF LC): 1444 1) Clarification around device support for cookies or basic/digest 1445 authentication. 1447 2)Additional text in section 6.3 (PIDF-LO) around the LIS including 1448 (and not including) any information identifying the device in the 1449 returned PIDF-LO. 1451 3) As always, a few additional editorial changes and clarifications. 1453 Changes from 13 to 14 (AD comments post 2nd IETF LC): 1455 1) Section 4.3: Removed reference to location-dereference protocol 1456 document. Generalized statement wrt HELD not meeting all the lbyr 1457 requirements (e.g., cancelling of location references). 1459 2) Removed section 5.1 (Delivery Protocol) and just left the 1460 statement that this document describes the use of HTTP and that HELD 1461 is an application layer protocol. 1463 3) Section 6.1: "the LIS should provide the most accurate LI" -> "the 1464 LIS provides the most accurate LI" to avoid the inference of a 1465 normative requirement. 1467 4) Section 6.3: clarified "locationUnknown" error code. 1469 5) Section 6.4: changed text to indication that errors can contain 1470 multiple "message" parameters to accommodate errors in different 1471 languages. 1473 6) Section 7 : updated XML schema to reflect change in error message 1474 to accommodate multiple "message" parameters. Note, a few other 1475 changes to XML schema based on "strict" validation. 1477 7) Section 8: clarified that redirect should be authenticated if the 1478 Device requires that the redirect server is authenticated. 1480 8) Section 10: 1482 - updated examples due to updates to XML schema 1484 - removed empty POST example. 1486 9) Section 11.4: Changed IANA registration for error codes from 1487 "Specification Required" to "Standards Action" 1489 10) Other minor clarifications. 1491 Changes from WG 12 to 13 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1493 1) Fixed editorial error in section 6.2 with regards to empty 1494 "locationType" - error was introduced in 06 to 07 changes. 1496 2) Added additional text in section 6.5.1 to improve security 1497 associated with locationURIs. 1499 3) Modified XML schema for errorType and responseType to allow an 1500 attribute to be returned. Also, added extensibility to errorType. 1502 Changes from WG 11 to 12 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1504 1) Expanded text in section 8 (HTTP binding) to provide more detail 1505 about the requirements for an HTTP implementation supporting HELD. 1506 Clarified the mandatory functionality and specific handling of other 1507 functionality of HTTP. 1509 2) Clarification in section 9.1 for clients that have external info 1510 wrt the identity or credentials of the LIS. 1512 3) More nits. 1514 Changes from WG 10 to 11 (Post-2nd WGLC): 1516 1) Added additional text around the scope and applicability of the 1517 URI returned from LIS Discovery (section 4). 1519 2) Removed HTTP GET - will always use POST. 1521 3) Removed sentence wrt mobile devices in section 6.2. 1523 4) Added specific recommendation for minimum value for expires in 1524 section 6.5.2 (30 Minutes). 1526 5) Remove reference to RFC 3704 (for IP address spoofing) in section 1527 9.3 (bullet 2). 1529 6) Clarified that both HTTP and HTTPS are allowed - changed last 1530 bullet in section 5.1 from REQUIRES to RECOMMENDS. 1532 7) Clarification wrt "presence" parameter in section 6.6 - a "single" 1533 presence parameter may be included. 1535 Changes from WG 09 to 10 (2nd WGLC): 1537 1) Updated text for Devices and VPNs (section 4.1.1) to include 1538 servers such as HTTP and SOCKs, thus changed the text to be generic 1539 in terms of locating LIS before connecting to one of these servers, 1540 etc. 1542 2) Fixed (still buggy) HTTP examples. 1544 3) Added text explaining the whitespaces in XML schema are for 1545 readability/document format limitations and that they should be 1546 handled via parser/schema validation. 1548 4) Miscellaneous editorial nits 1550 Changes from WG 08 to 09 (Post-IETF LC: continued resolution of sec- 1551 dir and gen-art review comments, along with apps-area feedback): 1553 1) Removed heldref/heldrefs URIs, including fixing examples (which 1554 were buggy anyways). 1556 2) Clarified text for locationURI - specifying that the deref 1557 protocol must define or appropriately restrict and clarifying that 1558 requirements for deref must be met and that deref details are out of 1559 scope for this document. 1561 3) Clarified text in security section for support of both HTTP/HTTPS. 1563 4) Changed definition for Location Type to force the specification of 1564 at least one location type. 1566 Changes from WG 07 to 08 (IETF LC: sec-dir and gen-art review 1567 comments): 1569 1) Fix editorial nits: rearranging sections in 4.1 for readibility, 1570 etc. 1572 2) Added back text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and 1573 LLDP-MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS. 1575 3) Clarified the use of both HTTP and HTTPS. 1577 4) Defined two URIs related to 3 respectively - divided IANA 1578 registrations into sub-sections to accomodate this change. (Note: 1579 LIS Discovery will now define that URI, thus this document defines 1580 the one associatied with a Location reference). 1582 5) Clarified the description of the location URI in Protocol Overview 1583 and Protocol parameter sections. Note that these sections again 1584 reference location dereference protocol for completeness and 1585 clarification of issues that are out of scope for this base document. 1587 6) Defined new error code: notLocatable. 1589 7) Clarifications and corrections in security section. 1591 8) Clarified text for locationType, specifically removing extra text 1592 from "any" description and putting that in a separate paragraph. 1593 Also, provided an example. 1595 9) Added boundaries for "expires" parameter. 1597 10) Clarified that the HELD protocol as defined by this document does 1598 not allow for canceling location references. 1600 Changes from WG 06 to 07 (PROTO review comments): 1602 1) Fix nits: remove unused references, move requirements to 1603 Informational References section, fix long line in ABNF, fix ABNF 1604 (quotes around '?'), add schemaLocation to import namespace in XML 1605 schema. 1607 2) Remove text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and LLDP- 1608 MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS, per Issue 1 resolution at 1609 IETF-71. (Editorial oversight in producing version 06). 1611 Changes from WG 05 to 06 (2nd WGLC comments): 1613 1) Updated security section based on WG feedback, including 1614 condensing section 10.1.1 (Assuring the proper LIS has been 1615 contacted), restructuring sections by flattening, adding an 1616 additional step to the list that had been in the Accuracy section and 1617 removing summary section. 1619 2) Changed URI schema to "helds" to address concerns over referential 1620 integrity and for consistency with mandate of TLS for HELD. 1622 3) Editorial clarifications including fixing examples to match HELD 1623 URI definition (e.g., adding port, adding randomness to URI examples, 1624 etc.) 1626 4) Updated references removing unused references and moving 1627 requirements docs to Informational Reference section to avoid 1628 downrefs. 1630 Changes from WG 04 to 05 (WGLC comments): 1632 1) Totally replaced the security section with the details provided by 1633 Richard Barnes so that we don't need a reference to the location 1634 security document. 1636 2) Fixed error codes in schema to allow extensibility. Change the 1637 IANA registration to be "specification required". 1639 3) Cleaned up the HELD: URI description, per comments from Martin and 1640 James and partially addressing HELD-04 Issue 1. Put the definition 1641 in a separate section and clarified the applicability (to also 1642 include being a results of the discovery process) and fixed examples. 1644 4) Updated the LocationURI section to be more accurate, address 1645 HELD-04 Issue 3, and include the reference to the new HELD:URI 1646 section. Also, fixed an error in the doc in that the top level parm 1647 in the locationResponse is actually locationUriSet, which contains 1648 any number of locationURI elements and the "expires" parameter. So, 1649 Table 1 was also updated and a new section for the LocationURISet was 1650 added that includes the subsections for the "locationURI" and 1651 "expires". And, then clarified that "expires" applies to 1652 "locationURISet" and not per "locationURI". 1654 5) Editorial nits: pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., by-value -> 1655 by value, by-reference -> by reference, etc.) and onlist by James and 1656 Martin. Please refer to the diff for a complete view of editorial 1657 changes. 1659 6) Added text in HTTP binding section to disable HTTP caching 1660 (HELD-04 Issue 5 on the list). 1662 Changes from WG 03 to 04: 1664 1) Terminology: clarified in terminology section that "attribute" and 1665 "element" are used in the strict XML sense and "parameter" is used as 1666 a general protocol term Replaced term "HTTP delivery" with "HTTP 1667 transport". Still have two terms "HTTP transport" and "HTTP 1668 binding", but those are consistent with general uses of HTTP. 1670 2) Editorial changes and clarifications: per Roger Marshall's and 1671 Eric Arolick's comments and subsequent WG mailing list discussion. 1673 3) Changed normative language for describing expected and recommended 1674 LIS behaviors to be non-normative recommendations in cases where the 1675 protocol parameters were not the target of the discussion (e.g., we 1676 can't prescribe to the LIS how it determines location or what it 1677 defines to be an "accurate" location). 1679 4) Clarified responseTime attribute (section 6.1). Changed type from 1680 "decimal" to "nonNegativeInteger" in XML schema (section 7) 1682 5) Updated Table 1 in section 6 to only include top-level parameters 1683 and fixed some errors in that table (i.e., code for locationResponse) 1684 and adding PIDF-LO to the table. Added a detailed section describing 1685 PIDF-LO (section 6.6), moving some of the normative text in the 1686 Protocol Overview to this section. 1688 6) Added schema and description for locationURI to section 6.5. 1689 Added IANA registration for HELD: URI schema. 1691 7) Added IANA registry for error codes. 1693 Changes from WG 02 to 03: 1695 1) Added text to address concern over use of IP address as device 1696 identifier, per long email thread - changes to section 3 (overview) 1697 and section 4 (protocol overview). 1699 2) Removed WSDL (section 8 updated, section 8.1 and 10.4 removed) 1701 3) Added extensibility to baseRequestType in the schema (an oversight 1702 from previous edits), along with fixing some other nits in schema 1703 (section 7) 1705 4) Moved discussion of Location URI from section 5.3 (Location 1706 Response) to where it rightly belonged in Section 6.5 (Location URI 1707 Parameter). 1709 5) Clarified text for "expires" parameter (6.5.1) - it's an optional 1710 parm, but required for LocationURIs 1712 6) Clarified responseTime parameter: when missing, then the LCS 1713 provides most precise LI, with the time required being implementation 1714 specific. 1716 7) Clarified that the MUST use in section 8 (HTTP binding) is a MUST 1717 implement. 1719 8) Updated references (removed unused/added new). 1721 Changes from WG 01 to 02: 1723 1) Updated Terminology to be consistent with WG agreements and other 1724 documents (e.g., LCS -> LIS and removed duplicate terms). In the 1725 end, there are no new terms defined in this document. 1727 2) Modified definition of responseTime to reflect WG consensus. 1729 3) Removed jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic locationTypes (leaving 1730 just "civic"). 1732 4) Clarified text that locationType is optional. Fixed table 1 and 1733 text in section 5.2 (locationRequest description). Text in section 1734 6.2 (description of locationType element) already defined the default 1735 to be "any". 1737 5) Simplified error responses. Separated the definition of error 1738 response type from the locationResponse type thus no need for 1739 defining an error code of "success". This simplifies the schema and 1740 processing. 1742 6) Updated schema/examples for the above. 1744 7) Updated Appendix A based on updates to requirements document, 1745 specifically changes to A.1, A.3 and adding A.10. 1747 8) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications. 1749 Changes from WG 00 to 01: 1751 1) heldResponse renamed to locationResponse. 1753 2) Changed namespace references for the PIDF-LO geoShape in the 1754 schema to match the agreed GML PIDF-LO Geometry Shape Application 1755 Schema. 1757 3) Removed "options" element - leaving optionality/extensibility to 1758 XML mechanisms. 1760 4) Changed error codes to be enumerations and not redefinitions of 1761 HTTP response codes. 1763 5) Updated schema/examples for the above and removed some remnants of 1764 the context element. 1766 6) Clarified the definition of "Location Information (LI)" to include 1767 a reference to the location (to match the XML schema and provide 1768 consistency of usage throughout the document). Added an additional 1769 statement in section 7.2 (locationType) to clarify that LCS MAY also 1770 return a Location URI. 1772 7) Modifed the definition of "Location Configuration Server (LCS)" to 1773 be consistent with the current definiton in the requirements 1774 document. 1776 8) Updated Location Response (section 6.3) to remove reference to 1777 context and discuss the used of a local identifier or unlinked 1778 pseudonym in providing privacy/security. 1780 9) Clarified that the source IP address in the request is used as the 1781 identifier for the target/device for the HELD protocol as defined in 1782 this document. 1784 10) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications. 1786 15. References 1788 15.1. Normative References 1790 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1791 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1793 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 1794 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. 1796 [RFC2965] Kristol, D. and L. Montulli, "HTTP State Management 1797 Mechanism", RFC 2965, October 2000. 1799 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 1800 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 1801 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 1803 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. 1805 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 1806 January 2004. 1808 [RFC5491] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV 1809 Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) 1810 Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations", 1811 RFC 5491, March 2009. 1813 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] 1814 Thompson, H., Mendelsohn, N., Maloney, M., and D. Beech, 1815 "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide 1816 Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, 1817 October 2004, 1818 . 1820 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 1821 Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes 1822 Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium 1823 Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004, 1824 . 1826 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] 1827 Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local 1828 Location Information Server (LIS)", 1829 draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11 (work in progress), 1830 May 2009. 1832 15.2. Informative References 1834 [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, 1835 RFC 793, September 1981. 1837 [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., 1838 Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP 1839 Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", 1840 RFC 2617, June 1999. 1842 [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media 1843 Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. 1845 [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and 1846 J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. 1848 [RFC3825] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host 1849 Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based 1850 Location Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004. 1852 [LLDP-MED] 1853 TIA, "ANSI/TIA-1057 Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media 1854 Endpoint Discovery". 1856 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1857 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1858 RFC 3986, January 2005. 1860 [RFC4479] Rosenberg, J., "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479, 1861 July 2006. 1863 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 1864 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 1865 May 2008. 1867 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] 1868 Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 1869 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and 1870 Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-09 (work in 1871 progress), February 2009. 1873 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] 1874 Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference 1875 Mechanism", draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07 (work 1876 in progress), February 2009. 1878 [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] 1879 Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the 1880 Session Initiation Protocol", 1881 draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-13 (work in progress), 1882 March 2009. 1884 Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements 1886 This appendix describes HELD's compliance to the requirements 1887 specified in the [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. 1889 A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice 1891 "The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST 1892 define an identifier that is mandatory to implement. Regarding the 1893 latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is from 1894 the same realm as the one for which the location information service 1895 maintains identifier to location mapping." 1897 COMPLY 1899 HELD uses the IP address of the location request message as the 1900 primary source of identity for the requesting device or target. This 1901 identity can be used with other contextual network information to 1902 provide a physical location for the Target for many network 1903 deployments. There may be network deployments where an IP address 1904 alone is insufficient to identify a Target in a network. However, 1905 any necessary identity extensions for these networks is beyond the 1906 scope of this document. 1908 A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support 1910 "The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST support a 1911 broad range of mobility from devices that can only move between 1912 reboots, to devices that can change attachment points with the impact 1913 that their IP address is changed, to devices that do not change their 1914 IP address while roaming, to devices that continuously move by being 1915 attached to the same network attachment point." 1917 COMPLY 1919 Mobility support is inherently a characteristic of the access network 1920 technology and HELD is designed to be access network agnostic. 1921 Consequently HELD complies with this requirement. In addition HELD 1922 provides specific support for mobile environments by providing an 1923 optional responseTime attribute in location request messages. 1924 Wireless networks often have several different mechanisms at their 1925 disposal for position determination (e.g. Assisted GPS versus 1926 location based on serving base station identity), each providing 1927 different degrees of accuracy and taking different amounts of time to 1928 yield a result. The responseTime parameter provides the LIS with a 1929 criterion which it can use to select a location determination 1930 technique. 1932 A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship 1934 "The design of the L7 LCP MUST NOT assume a business or trust 1935 relationship between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the 1936 Access Network Provider. Requirements for resolving a reference to 1937 location information are not discussed in this document." 1939 COMPLY 1941 HELD describes a location acquisition protocol between a Device and a 1942 LIS. In the context of HELD, the LIS is within the Access Network. 1943 Thus, HELD is independent of the business or trust relationship 1944 between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the Access Network 1945 Provider. Location acquisition using HELD is subject to the 1946 restrictions described in Section 9. 1948 A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship 1950 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1951 MUST assume that there is a trust and business relationship between 1952 the L2 and the L3 provider. The L3 provider operates the LIS and 1953 needs to obtain location information from the L2 provider since this 1954 one is closest to the end host. If the L2 and L3 provider for the 1955 same host are different entities, they cooperate for the purposes 1956 needed to determine end system locations." 1958 COMPLY 1960 HELD was specifically designed with this model in mind and readily 1961 allows itself to chaining requests between operators without a change 1962 in protocol being required. HELD is a webservices protocol which can 1963 be bound to transports other than HTTP, such as BEEP. Using a 1964 protocol such as BEEP offers the option of high request throughput 1965 over a dedicated connection between an L3 provider and an L2 provider 1966 without incurring the serial restriction imposed by HTTP. This is 1967 less easy to do with protocols that do not decouple themselves from 1968 the transport. 1970 A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations 1972 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1973 MUST consider legacy residential NAT devices and NTEs in an DSL 1974 environment that cannot be upgraded to support additional protocols, 1975 for example to pass additional information through DHCP." 1977 COMPLY 1979 HELD is an application protocol and operates on top of IP. A HELD 1980 request from a host behind a residential NAT will traverse the NAT 1981 acquiring the external address of the home router. The location 1982 provided to the host therefore will be the address of the home router 1983 in this circumstance. No changes are required to the home router in 1984 order to support this function, HELD was designed specifically to 1985 address this deployment scenario. 1987 A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness 1989 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 1990 MUST assume that at least one end of a VPN is aware of the VPN 1991 functionality. In an enterprise scenario, the enterprise side will 1992 provide the LIS used by the client and can thereby detect whether the 1993 LIS request was initiated through a VPN tunnel." 1995 COMPLY 1997 HELD does not preclude a LIS on the far end of a VPN tunnel being 1998 aware that the client request is occurring over that tunnel. It also 1999 does not preclude a client device from accessing a LIS serving the 2000 local physical network and subsequently using the location 2001 information with an application that is accessed over a VPN tunnel. 2003 A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication 2005 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 2006 MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication." 2008 COMPLY 2010 HELD makes no assumptions about prior network access authentication. 2011 HELD strongly recommends the use of TLS with server-side certificates 2012 for communication between the end-point and the LIS. There is no 2013 requirement for the end-point to authenticate with the LIS. 2015 A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness 2017 "The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol 2018 MUST NOT assume end systems being aware of the access network 2019 topology. End systems are, however, able to determine their public 2020 IP address(es) via mechanisms such as STUN or NSIS NATFW NSLP." 2022 COMPLY 2024 HELD makes no assumption about the network topology. HELD doesn't 2025 require that the device know its external IP address, except where 2026 that is required for discovery of the LIS. 2028 A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism 2030 "The L7 LCP MUST define a single mandatory to implement discovery 2031 mechanism." 2033 COMPLY 2035 HELD uses the discovery mechanism in 2036 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]. 2038 A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation 2040 "When a LIS creates a PIDF-LO per RFC 4119 then it MUST put the 2041 element into the element of the presence document 2042 (see RFC 4479). This ensures that the resulting PIDF-LO document, 2043 which is subsequently distributed to other entities, conforms to the 2044 rules outlined in ". [RFC5491] 2046 COMPLY 2048 HELD protocol overview (Section 4 ) describes the requirements on the 2049 LIS in creating the PIDF-LO and prescribes that the PIDF-LO generated 2050 by the LIS MUST conform to [RFC5491]. 2052 Authors' Addresses 2054 Mary Barnes (editor) 2055 Nortel 2056 2201 Lakeside Blvd 2057 Richardson, TX 2058 USA 2060 Email: mary.barnes@nortel.com 2062 James Winterbottom 2063 Andrew 2064 PO Box U40 2065 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 2066 AU 2068 Phone: +61 2 4221 2938 2069 Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com 2070 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 2072 Martin Thomson 2073 Andrew 2074 PO Box U40 2075 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 2076 AU 2078 Phone: +61 2 4221 2915 2079 Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com 2080 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 2082 Barbara Stark 2083 BellSouth 2084 Room 7A43 2085 725 W Peachtree St. 2086 Atlanta, GA 30308 2087 US 2089 Email: barbara.stark@att.com