ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia University
Intended status: Experimental H. Tschofenig
Expires: February 10, 2010 Nokia Siemens Networks
August 9, 2009
Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based
Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-07.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 10, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based
protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic
location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In
particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.
The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for
encapsulating information about service boundaries is defined in the
LoST protocol specification and circumscribes the region within which
all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) or set of URIs for a given service.
This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings
between two nodes. This mechanism is designed for the exchange of
authoritative <mapping> elements between two entities. Exchanging
cached <mapping> elements, i.e. non-authoritative elements, is
possible but not envisioned. In any case, this document can also be
used without the LoST protocol even though the format of the
<mapping> element is re-used from the LoST specification.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> /
<getMappingsResponse> Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Pushing Mappings via <pushMappings> and
<pushMappingsResponse> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. RelaxNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Content-type registration for
'application/lostsync+xml' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. LoST Sync Relax NG Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3. LoST Synchronization Namespace Registration . . . . . . . 20
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
1. Introduction
The LoST (Location-to-Service Translation) protocol [RFC5222] maps
service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to
service URIs. The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used
for encapsulating information about service boundaries is defined in
the LoST protocol specification and circumscribes the region within
which all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a given service.
This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative
<mapping> elements between two entities (the LoST Sync source and the
LoST Sync destination).
The LoST Sync mechanism can, for example, be used in the LoST
architecture, as specified in the [I-D.ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch].
There, LoST servers act in different roles that cooperate to provide
an ubiquitous, globally scalable and resilient mapping service. In
the LoST mapping architecture, LoST servers can peer, i.e., have an
on-going data exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set
up manually, based on local policies. A server can peer with any
number of other servers. Forest guides peer with other forest
guides; resolvers peer with forest guides and other resolvers (in the
same cluster); authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides
and other authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above
or below them in the tree. Authoritative mapping servers push
coverage regions "up" the tree, i.e., from child nodes to parent
nodes. The child informs the parent of the geospatial or civic
region that it covers for a specific service.
As an example consider the following two forest guides for two
countries, country Foo and country Bar. Country Foo has only 5 PSAPs
and the boundaries for fire, police and ambulance are identical.
Country Bar has a large number of PSAPs but their emergency services
architecture is designed in a way that all emergency calls are served
by a small number of replicated and highly available Emergency
Services Routing Proxies (ESRPs). These ESRPs give outside countries
the illusion of a single PSAP. From a call routing point of view a
ESRP receiving an emergency call performs location based routing to
forward calls to one of the large number of PSAPs.
Country Foo and country Bar utilize LoST Sync to keep their mappings
up-to-date. Every country is responsible for maintaining their own
mapping information and hence they configure their LoST Sync nodes in
a way that they exchange the respective mapping information. In this
case, the mapping data will be synchronized in both directions.
Since the amount of data being exchanged is small and the expected
rate of change is low the LoST Sync nodes are configured to always
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
exchange all their mapping information whenever a change happens.
This document defines two types of exchanges and those are best
described by the exchange between two nodes as shown in Figure 1 and
Figure 2. The protocol exchange always runs between a LoST Sync
source and a LoST Sync destination. Node A in the examples of
Figure 1 and Figure 2 has mappings that Node B is going to retrieve.
Node A acts as the source for the data and Node B is the destination.
The <getMappingsRequest> request allows a LoST Sync source to request
mappings from a LoST Sync destination.
+---------+ +---------+
| Node B | | Node A |
| acting | | acting |
| as | | as |
| LoST | | LoST |
| Sync | | Sync |
| Dest. | | Source |
+---------+ +---------+
| |
| |
| |
| <getMappingsRequest> |
|----------------------------->|
| |
| <getMappingsResponse> |
|<-----------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
Figure 1: Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> Message
Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 1 Node B issuing the
first request and plays the role of the HTTP/HTTPS client (with HTTP
as selected transport) and Node A plays the role of the HTTP/HTTPS
server.
The <pushMappingsRequest> exchange allows a LoST Sync source to push
mappings to LoST Sync destination. The assumption is being made that
Node A and B have previously been configured in a way that they push
mappings in such a fashion and that Node A maintains state about the
mappings have to be pushed to Node B. No subscribe mechanism is
defined in this document that would allow Node B to tell Node A about
what mappings it is interested nor a mechanism for learning to which
entities mappings have to be pushed.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
+---------+ +---------+
| Node A | | Node B |
| acting | | acting |
| as | | as |
| LoST | | LoST |
| Sync | | Sync |
| Source | | Dest. |
+---------+ +---------+
| |
| |
| |
| <pushMappingsRequest> |
|----------------------------->|
| |
| <pushMappingsResponse> |
|<-----------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
Figure 2: Pushing Mappings with a <pushMappingsRequest> Message
Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 2 Node A issuing the
first request and plays the role of the HTTP/HTTPS client (with HTTP
as selected transport) and Node B plays the role of the HTTP/HTTPS
server.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping
architecture document [I-D.ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch].
Throughout this document we use the term LoST Sync source and LoST
Sync destination to denote the protocol end points of the exchange.
The protocol is referred as LoST Sync within the text.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
3. Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> /
<getMappingsResponse> Exchange
3.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source
A LoST Sync destination has two ways to retrieve mapping elements
from a LoST Sync source.
1. A mechanisms that is suitable when no mappings are available on
the LoST Sync destination is to submit an empty
<getMappingsRequest> message, as shown in Figure 3. The intent
by the LoST Sync destination thereby is to retrieve all mappings
from the LoST Sync source. Note that the request does not
propagate further to other nodes.
2. In case a LoST Sync destination node has already obtained
mappings in previous exchanges then it may want to check whether
these mappings have been updated in the meanwhile. The policy
when to poll for updated mapping information is outside the scope
of this document. The <getMappingsRequest> message with one or
multiple <exists> child element(s) allows to reduce the number of
returned mappings to those that have been updated and also to
those that are missing.
In response to the <getMappingsRequest> message the LoST Sync
destination waits for the <getMappingsResponse> message. In case of
a successful response the LoST Sync destination stores the received
mappings and determines which mappings to replace.
3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source
When a LoST Sync source receives an empty <getMappingsRequest>
message then all locally available mappings MUST be returned.
When a LoST Sync source receives a <getMappingsRequest> message with
one or multiple <exists> child element(s) then it MUST consult with
the local mapping database to determine whether any of the mappings
of the client is stale and whether there are mappings locally that
the client does not yet have. The former can be determined by
finding mappings corresponding to the 'source' and 'sourceID'
attribut where a mapping with a more recent lastUpdated date exists.
Processing a <getMappingsRequest> message MAY lead to a successful
response in the form of a <getMappingsResponse> or an <errors>
message. Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>,
<serverTimeout> errors, defined in [RFC5222], are utilized by this
specification. Neither the <redirect> nor the <warnings> messages
are reused by this message.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
3.3. Examples
The first example shows an empty <getMappingsRequest> message that
would retrieve all locally stored mappings at the LoST Sync source.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/>
Figure 3: Example of empty <getMappingsRequest> message
A further example request is shown in Figure 4 and the corresponding
response is depicted in Figure 5. In this example a request is made
for a specific mapping (with source="authoritative.bar.example" and
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66") that is more recent than
"2006-11-01T01:00:00Z".
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">
<exists>
<mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z">
</mapping-fingerprint>
</exists>
</getMappingsRequest>
Figure 4: Example <getMappingsRequest> Message
The response to the above request is shown in Figure 5. A more
recent mapping was available with the identification of
source="authoritative.bar.example" and
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66". Only one mapping that
matched source="authoritative.foo.example" was found and returned.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sync:getMappingsResponse
xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml">
<mapping source="authoritative.bar.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"
expires="2009-12-26T01:00:00Z">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
Leonia Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary
profile="urn:ietf:params:lost:location-profile:basic-civic">
<civicAddress
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<country>US</country>
<A1>NJ</A1>
<A3>Leonia</A3>
<PC>07605</PC>
</civicAddress>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:police@leonianj2.example.org</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<mapping expires="2009-01-01T01:44:33Z"
lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
source="authoritative.foo.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
New York City Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
<p2:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
<p2:exterior>
<p2:LinearRing>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
</p2:LinearRing>
</p2:exterior>
</p2:Polygon>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:nypd@example.com</uri>
<uri>xmpp:nypd@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
</sync:getMappingsResponse>
Figure 5: Example <getMappingsResponse> Message
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
4. Pushing Mappings via <pushMappings> and <pushMappingsResponse>
4.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source
When a LoST Sync source obtains new information that is of interest
to its peers, it may push the new mappings to its peers.
Configuration settings at both peers decide whether this
functionality is used and what mappings are pushed to which other
peers. New mappings may arrive through various means, such as a
manual addition to the local mapping database, or through the
interaction with other entities. Deleting mappings may also trigger
a protocol interaction.
The LoST Sync source SHOULD keep track to which LoST Sync destination
it has pushed mapping elements. If it does not keep state
information then it always has to push the complete data set. As
discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC5222], mapping elements are
identified by the 'source', 'sourceID' and 'lastUpdated' attributes.
A mapping is considered the same if these three attributes match. It
is RECOMMENDED not to push the same information to the same peer more
than once.
A <pushMappings> request sent by a LoST Sync source MUST containing
one or more <mapping> elements.
To delete a mapping, the content of the mapping is left empty. The
node can delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but
has to remember which peers it has distributed this update to. The
'expires' attribute is required, but ignored. If an attempt is made
to delete a non-existent mapping, the request is silently ignored.
4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination
When a LoST Sync destination receives a <pushMappingsRequest> message
then a newly received mapping M' MUST replace an existing mapping M
if all of the following conditions hold:
1. M'.source equals M.source
2. M'.sourceID' equals M.sourceID
3. M'.lastUpdated is greater than M.lastUpdated
If the received mapping M' does not update any existing mapping M
then it MUST be added to the local cache as an independent mapping.
If a <pushMappingsRequest> message with an empty <mapping> element is
received then a corresponding mapping has to be determined based on
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
the 'source', 'sourceID' and 'lastUpdated' attributes. If a mapping
has been found then it MUST be deleted. If no mapping can be
identified then an <errors> response MUST be returned that contains
the <notDeleted> child element. The <notDeleted> element MAY carry a
<message> element and MUST contain the <mapping> element(s) that
caused the error.
The response to a <pushMappingsRequest> request is a
<pushMappingsResponse> message. With this specification, a
successful response message returns no additional elements, whereas
an <errors> response is returned in the response message, if the
request failed. Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>
or <serverTimeout> errors defined in Section 13.1 of [RFC5222], are
used. The <redirect> and <warnings> messages are not used for this
query/response.
If the set of nodes that are synchronizing their data does not form a
tree, it is possible that the same information arrives through
several other nodes. This is unavoidable, but generally only imposes
a modest overhead. (It would be possible to create a spanning tree
in the same fashion as IP multicast, but the complexity does not seem
warranted, given the relatively low volume of data.)
4.3. Example
An example is shown in Figure 6. Image a LoST node that obtained two
new mappings identified as follows:
o source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66" lastUpdated="2008-11-
26T01:00:00Z"
o source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111" lastUpdated="2008-11-
01T01:00:00Z"
These two mappings have to be added to the peer's mapping database.
Additionally, the following mapping has to be deleted:
o source="nj.us.example" sourceId="123" lastUpdated="2008-11-
01T01:00:00Z"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sync:pushMappingsRequest
xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml">
<mapping source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"
expires="2009-12-26T01:00:00Z">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
Leonia Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary
profile="urn:ietf:params:lost:location-profile:basic-civic">
<civicAddress
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<country>US</country>
<A1>NJ</A1>
<A3>Leonia</A3>
<PC>07605</PC>
</civicAddress>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:police@leonianj.example.org</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<mapping expires="2009-01-01T01:44:33Z"
lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
New York City Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
<p2:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
<p2:exterior>
<p2:LinearRing>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
</p2:LinearRing>
</p2:exterior>
</p2:Polygon>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:nypd@example.com</uri>
<uri>xmpp:nypd@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
</mapping>
<mapping source="nj.us.example"
sourceId="123"
lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
expires="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"/>
</sync:pushMappingsRequest>
Figure 6: Example <pushMappingsRequest> Message
In response, the peer performs the necessary operation and updates
its mapping database. In particular, it will check whether the other
peer is authorized to perform the update and whether the elements and
attributes contain values that it understands. In our example, a
positive response is returned as shown in Figure 7.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<pushMappingsResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1" />
Figure 7: Example <pushMappingsResponse>
In case that a mapping could not be deleted as requested the
following error response might be returned instead.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<errors xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
source="nodeA.example.com">
<sync:notDeleted
message="Could not delete the indicated mapping."
xml:lang="en">
<mapping source="nj.us.example"
sourceId="123"
lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
expires="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"/>
</sync:notDeleted>
</errors>
Figure 8: Example <errors> Message
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
5. Transport
LoST Sync needs an underlying protocol transport mechanism to carry
requests and responses. This document defines an XML protocol over
HTTP and over HTTP-over-TLS. Client and server developers are
reminded that full support of RFC 2616 HTTP facilities is expected.
If clients or servers re-implement HTTP, rather than using available
servers or client code as a base, careful attention must be paid to
full interoperability. Other transport mechanisms are left to future
documents. The selection of the transport mechanism will in most
cases be determined through manual configuration although the usage
of the U-NAPTR application defined in the LoST specification is
possible. In protocols that support content type indication, LoST
Sync uses the media type application/lostsync+xml.
When using HTTP [RFC2616] and HTTP-over-TLS [RFC2818], LoST Sync
messages use the HTTP POST method. The HTTP request MUST use the
Cache-Control response directive "no-cache" to HTTP-level caching
even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to
client requests.
All LoST Sync responses, including those indicating a LoST warning or
error, are carried in 2xx responses, typically 200 (OK). Other 2xx
responses, in particular 203 (Non-authoritative information) may be
returned by HTTP caches that disregard the caching instructions. 3xx,
4xx and 5xx HTTP response codes indicates that the HTTP request
itself failed or was redirected; these responses do not contain any
LoST Sync XML elements.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
6. RelaxNG
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<grammar ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"
xmlns:a="http://relaxng.org/ns/compatibility/annotations/1.0"
datatypeLibrary="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes">
<include href="lost.rng"/>
<start combine="choice">
<a:documentation> Location-to-Service Translation (LoST)
Synchronization Protocol</a:documentation>
<choice>
<ref name="pushMappings"/>
<ref name="pushMappingsResponse"/>
<ref name="getMappingsRequest"/>
<ref name="getMappingsResponse"/>
</choice>
</start>
<define name="pushMappings">
<element name="pushMappings">
<oneOrMore>
<ref name="mapping"/>
</oneOrMore>
<ref name="extensionPoint"/>
</element>
</define>
<define name="pushMappingsResponse">
<element name="pushMappingsResponse">
<ref name="extensionPoint"/>
</element>
</define>
<define name="getMappingsRequest">
<element name="getMappingsRequest">
<choice>
<ref name="exists"></ref>
<ref name="extensionPoint"/>
</choice>
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
</element>
</define>
<define name="exists">
<element name="exists">
<oneOrMore>
<element name="mapping-fingerprint">
<attribute name="source">
<data type="token"/>
</attribute>
<attribute name="sourceId">
<data type="token"/>
</attribute>
<attribute name="lastUpdated">
<data type="dateTime"/>
</attribute>
<ref name="extensionPoint"/>
</element>
</oneOrMore>
</element>
</define>
<define name="getMappingsResponse">
<element name="getMappingsResponse">
<oneOrMore>
<ref name="mapping"/>
</oneOrMore>
<ref name="extensionPoint"/>
</element>
</define>
<!-- error messages -->
<define name="notDeleted">
<element name="notDeleted">
<ref name="basicException"/>
<oneOrMore>
<ref name="mapping"/>
</oneOrMore>
</element>
</define>
</grammar>
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
7. Security Considerations
This document defines a protocol for exchange of mapping information
between two entities. Hence, the operations described in this
document involve mutually-trusting LoST nodes. These nodes need to
authenticate each other, using mechanisms such as HTTP Digest
[RFC2617], HTTP Basic [RFC2617] over TLS [RFC5246] or TLS client and
server certificates. Manual configuration for the setup of the
peering relationships is required and hence the choice of the
security mechanisms used between the two entities is a deployment
specific decision. In any case, it MUST be ensured that the two end
points are authenticated and that a secure communication channel
(i.e., an integrity protected exchange of data with the help of the
TLS Record Layer) is setup to avoid the possibility of injecting
bogus mappings. If an adversary manages to inject false mappings
then this could lead to denial of service attacks. If the mapping
data contains a URL that does not exist then emergency services for
the indicated area are not reachable. If all mapping data contains
URLs that point to a single PSAP (rather than a large number) then
this PSAP is likely to experience overload conditions. If the
mapping data contains a URL that points to a server controlled by the
adversary itself then it might impersonate PSAPs.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Content-type registration for 'application/lostsync+xml'
This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type
according to the procedures of RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and guidelines in
RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: lostsync+xml
Mandatory parameters: none
Optional parameters: charset
Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML.
Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit
characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC
3023 [RFC3023], Section 3.2.
Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry LoST
Syncronization protocol payloads.
Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please
replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.]
Applications which use this media type: Emergency and Location-based
Systems
Additional information:
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
Magic Number: None
File Extension: .lostsyncxml
Macintosh file type code: 'TEXT'
Personal and email address for further information: Hannes
Tschofenig, Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Author:
This specification is a work item of the IETF ECRIT working group,
with mailing list address <ecrit@ietf.org>.
Change controller:
The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
8.2. LoST Sync Relax NG Schema Registration
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:lostsync1
Registrant Contact: IETF ECRIT Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig
(Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).
Relax NG Schema: The Relax NG schema to be registered is contained
in Section 6.
8.3. LoST Synchronization Namespace Registration
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1
Registrant Contact: IETF ECRIT Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig
(Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).
XML:
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>LoST Synchronization Namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for LoST server synchronization</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync</h2>
<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX
[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:
Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
specification.]</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
9. Acknowledgments
Robins George, Cullen Jennings, Karl Heinz Wolf, Richard Barnes,
Mayutan Arumaithurai and Andrew Newton provided helpful input. Jari
Urpalainen assisted with the Relax NG schema. We would also like to
thank our PROTO shepherd Roger Marshall for his help with the
document.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch]
Schulzrinne, H., "Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and
Framework", draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-04 (work in
progress), March 2009.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync August 2009
Authors' Addresses
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Linnoitustie 6
Espoo 02600
Finland
Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires February 10, 2010 [Page 24]
