idnits 2.17.1 draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-dhcp-discovery-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 227. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 238. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 245. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 251. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. 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 RFC 3978 Section 5.4 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 (October 13, 2006) is 6404 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) == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 165, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-03 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 GEOPRIV J. Winterbottom 3 Internet-Draft M. Thomson 4 Intended status: Standards Track Andrew Corporation 5 Expires: April 16, 2007 October 13, 2006 7 HELD Service Discovery using DHCP 8 draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-dhcp-discovery-00.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 April 16, 2007. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 39 Abstract 41 This document describes a means by which a device can learn the URI 42 of the Local Location Information Server (LIS) using a DHCP option. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 49 4. Location Information Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 50 4.1. DHCPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 51 4.2. DHCPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 52 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 53 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 54 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 55 7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 56 7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 57 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 58 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12 60 1. Introduction 62 DHCP [RFC2131] is a commonly used mechanism for providing bootstrap 63 configuration information allowing a host to operate in a specific 64 network environment. Unlike largely static, logical network 65 configuration data, such as a Domain Name Server or default gateway 66 address, required by a host to operate in the network, the physical 67 location of a host can change; in many cases without the need for a 68 network reattachment. The network node responsible for providing 69 physical location information pertaining to a host is the Location 70 Information Server (LIS). 72 A LIS provides location information to a device using the HELD 73 protocol [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]. HELD is a 74 webservices application layer protocol that is accessed by a URI. 75 Like most network servers and services the LIS must first be 76 discovered by the host prior to use. This document describes IPv4 77 and IPv6 DHCP options for LIS discovery. 79 2. Terminology 81 The key conventions and terminology used in this document are defined 82 as follows: 84 This document reuses the terms Target, Location Server, Location 85 Generator, Location Recipient and Using-Protocol as defined in 86 [RFC3693]. Note that in this context, the Location Server is 87 distinct from what is alternatively referred to as a Registrar in 88 other contexts. In some specifications the Location Server is 89 referred to as a Location Information Server or LIS. 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 95 3. Overview 97 This document describes how a device can learn the address of the 98 local LIS using DHCP. 100 4. Location Information Server Discovery 102 4.1. DHCPv4 104 The DHCPv4 option includes a list of URIs; the first URI must be 105 attempted first and subsequent URIs contacted only in the event of a 106 problem in retrieving location information. Each URI must reference 107 a service that is able to provide the Target with location 108 information. 110 0 1 2 3 111 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | LOCSERV_URI | Length | URI ... . 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | URI (cont. max of 253 octets) 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 LOCSERV_URI: The IANA assigned option number (TBD). 120 Length: The length of the URI in octets. 122 URI: The URI of the HELD service. This URI MUST be no more than 253 123 bytes in length, and MUST NOT be NULL terminated. 125 4.2. DHCPv6 127 DHCP for IPv6 is defined in [RFC3315]. The DHCPv6 option for this 128 parameter is similarly formatted to the DHCPv4 option. 130 0 1 2 3 131 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 | OPTION_LOCSERV_URI | option-len | 134 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 135 | URI . 136 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 137 | URI (cont'd, up to 253 octets)... . 138 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 OPTION_LOCSERV_URI: The IANA assigned option number (TBD). 142 option-len: The length of the URI in octets. 144 URI: The URI of the HELD service. This URI MUST be no more than 253 145 bytes in length, and MUST NOT be NULL terminated. 147 5. Security Considerations 149 The options presented in this document describe how a host can learn 150 the URI of the HELD-based LIS in their access network. The LIS is 151 responsible for providing location information and this information 152 is critical to a number of network services; a host does not 153 necessarily have a prior relationship with a LIS. Therefore, 154 impersonation of a LIS is the most relevant threat to the use of this 155 option. It is recommended that DHCP authentication defined in 156 [RFC3118] be used to provide DHCP option integrity. 158 The address of a LIS is usually well-known within an access network; 159 therefore, interception of DHCP messages does not introduce any 160 specific concerns. 162 6. IANA Considerations 164 IANA has allocated a DHCPv4 option code of [TBD] and a DHCPv6 option 165 code of [TBD] for the HELD Service URI option described in this 166 document. 168 7. References 170 7.1. Normative references 172 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 173 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 175 [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery] 176 Winterbottom, J., "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", 177 draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-03 (work in 178 progress), May 2006. 180 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", 181 RFC 2131, March 1997. 183 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 184 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 185 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 187 [RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP 188 Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001. 190 7.2. Informative references 192 [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and 193 J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. 195 Authors' Addresses 197 James Winterbottom 198 Andrew Corporation 199 PO Box U40 200 University of Wollongong, NSW 2500 201 AU 203 Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com 205 Martin Thomson 206 Andrew Corporation 207 PO Box U40 208 University of Wollongong, NSW 2500 209 AU 211 Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com 213 Full Copyright Statement 215 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 217 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 218 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 219 retain all their rights. 221 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 222 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 223 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 224 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 225 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 226 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 227 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 229 Intellectual Property 231 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 232 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 233 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 234 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 235 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 236 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 237 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 238 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 240 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 241 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 242 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 243 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 244 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 245 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 247 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 248 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 249 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 250 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 251 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 253 Acknowledgment 255 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 256 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).