ECRIT R. Marshall
Internet-Draft J. Martin
Intended status: Standards Track Comtech TCS
Expires: April 26, 2019 B. Rosen
Neustar
October 23, 2018
A LoST extension to return complete and similar location info
draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-06
Abstract
This document introduces a new way to provide returned location
information in LoST responses that is either of a completed or
similar form to the original input civic location, based on whether
valid or invalid civic address elements are returned within the
findServiceResponse message. This document defines a new extension
to the findServiceResponse message within the LoST protocol [RFC5222]
that enables the LoST protocol to return a completed civic address
element set for a valid location response, and one or more suggested
sets of similar location information for invalid LoST responses.
These two types of civic addresses are referred to as either
"complete location" or "similar location", and are included as a
compilation of CAtype xml elements within the existing LoST
findServiceResponse message structure.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2019.
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Returned Location Information . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Returned Location Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Complete Location returned for Valid Location response . 8
5.2. Similar Location returned for Invalid Location response . 10
6. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. LoST-RLI Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The LoST protcol [RFC5222] supports the validation of civic location
information as input, by providing a set of validation result status
indicators. The current usefulness of the supported xml elements,
"valid", "invalid", and "unchecked", is limited, because while they
each provide an indication of validity for any one location element
as a part of the whole civic address, the mechanism is insufficient
in providing either the complete set of civic address elements that
the LoST server contains, or of providing alternate suggestions
(hints) as to which civic address is intended for use.
Whether the input civic location is valid and missing information, or
invalid due to missing or wrong information during input, this
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
document provides a mechanism to return a complete set of civic
address elements for those valid or invalid cases.
This enhancement to the validation feature within LoST is required by
systems that rely on accurate location for processing in order to
increase the likelihood that the correct and/or complete form of a
civic location becomes known in those cases where it is incomplete or
incorrect. One such use case is that of location based emergency
calling. The use of this protocol extension will protocol extension
will facilitate the correction of errors, and allow location servers
to be more easily provisioned with complete address information.
The structure of this document includes terminology, Section 2,
followed by a discussion of the basic elements involved in location
validation. The use of these elements, by way of example, is
discussed in an overview section, Section 3, with accompanying
rationale, and a brief discussion of the impacts to LoST, and its
current schema.
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].
The following terms are defined in this document:
Location: The term Location can be used to refer to either a civic
location or a geodetic location.
Geodetic Location: a geographic coordinate set of values that
describes a point within a defined geographic datum. For example,
a WGS84 referenced latitude, longitude coordinate pair (2D), or
latitude, longitude, and altitude (3D). Note: geodetic location
is defined here for context, but is not used elsewhere within this
document.
Civic Location: The term civic location applies to a set of one or
more civic address elements that are used in conjunction with each
other, and in accordance with a known ruleset to designate a
specific place within a region of geography, or a region of
geography by itself as defined in [RFC5139].
Civic Address: The term Civic Address is used interchangeably with
the term Civic Location within this document.
Civic Address Element: The term Civic Address Element is used within
this document to apply to an individual CAtype data descriptor,
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
for example, as is described in [RFC4776], [RFC5774], and
[RFC6848].
Invalid Location: A Civic Location that was included in a LoST
request and subsequently returned with one or more civic address
elements marked as invalid. Note that location information may be
submitted in the findRequest that causes the LoST server to return
locationInvalid. It is also possible that the location
information submitted is so inaccurate that this extension can not
be used, and the LoST server may return a notFound. In this
document, we use the term Invalid Location only to refer to a case
where the LoST server returns one or more elements in the invalid
list.
Valid Location: A Civic Location that was included in a LoST request
and subsequently returned with all civic address elements in the
valid or unchecked lists.
Complete Location: An expanded civic location that includes other
civic address elements in addition to the existing validated civic
address elements provided as input to a LoST server.
Similar Location: A suggested civic location that is comparatively
close to the civic location which was input, but which had one or
more invalid civic address elements returned by the LoST server.
Returned Location Information: A set of civic locations returned in
a LoST response.
3. Overview of Returned Location Information
This document describes an extension to LoST [RFC5222] to allow
additional location information to be returned in locationValidation
element of a findServiceResponse, where the location information in
the request is in a civic profile as described in RFC5222 or location
in another profile derived from that civic profile, for two different
use cases.
When a LoST server is asked to validate a civic location, its goal is
to take the set of civic address elements provided as the location
information in the LoST request, and find a unique location in its
database that matches the information in the request. Uniqueness
might not require values for all possible elements in the civic
address that the database might hold. Further, the input location
information might not represent the form of location the users of the
LoST service prefer to have. As an example, there are LoST civic
address elements that could be used to define a postal location,
suitable for delivery of mail as well as a municipal location
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
suitable for responding to an emergency call. While the LoST server
might be able to determine the location from the postal elements
provided, the emergency services would prefer that the municipal
location be used for any subsequent emergency call. Since validation
is often performed well in advance of an end-user placing an
emergency call, if the LoST server could return the preferred form of
location (or more properly in this example, the municipal elements in
addition to the postal elements), those elements could be stored in a
LIS and used in a later emergency call.
In addition, this document describes the reuse of the same mechanism,
but for a different purpose: to supply similar location information
in the case where a LoST server response includes one or more civic
address elements marked as invalid, constituting an invalid location
response. In this case, the response contains one or more suggested
alternative, but valid locations.
In a LoST findServiceResponse indicating a valid location - i.e.
containing a locationValidation element with no elements listed as
invalid - the locationValidation element may use this extension to
include additional location information. As an example, the query
might contain a HNO (house number), RD (road name) A3 (city), At
(state/province) and a few more CAtype elements, but might not
contain A2 (county) or PC (Postal Code) CAtypes. The HNO, RD, STS,
POD, A3 and A1 civic address elements might be sufficient enough to
the LoST server to uniquely locate the address specified in the
request and thus be considered valid. Yet, downstream entities might
find it helpful to have the additional A2 (county), and PC, (Postal
Code), civic address elements that are present within the LoST
server, be included as part of a complete location response. Since
[RFC5222] currently does not have a way for this additional location
information to be returned in the findServiceResponse, this document
extends the LoST protocol so that it can include a completeLocation
element within the locationValidation element of the
findServiceResponse message, allowing for the representation of
complete location information.
An example showing complete location information supplied:
input address: 6000 15th Ave NW Seattle
complete location: 6000 15th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98105 US
The information provided in the request may be enough to identify a
unique location in the LoST server, but that may not be the location
intended by the user. The completeLocation information may alert the
user to a mismatch between the provided location information and the
unique location the server interpreted that information to identify.
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
By contrast, when invalid location is received from the LoST server,
with this extension, the same mechanism works as follows: if a LoST
server returns a response to a findService request that contains a
set of civic address elements with one or more labeled as invalid,
the location information in the findServiceResponse is extended to
include additional location information that it suspects might be the
location desired.
In the example cited above, policy at the LoST server might deem a
missing A3 element as invalid, even if the location information in
the request was sufficient to identify a unique address. In that
case, the missing element would be listed in the invalid list, and
similarLocation could be returned in the response showing the missing
elements including A3, the same as the above example.
As another example of the use of similarLocation, consider the
results based on a similar data set as used above, where the HNO, RD,
STS, A1, and A3 civic address elements are not sufficient to locate a
unique address, which leads to an invalid location result. This is
the case, despite the fact that the LoST server typically contains
additional civic address elements which could have resulted in a
uniquely identifiable location if additional data had been supplied
with the query. Since [RFC5222] currently does not have a way for
this additional location information to be returned in the
findServiceResponse, this document extends [RFC5222] so that the LoST
locationValidation element of the findServiceResponse message can
include one or more similarLocation elements representing similar
civic locations.
To show this, suppose that a slightly modified address as above is
inserted within a Lost findService request:
input address: 6000 15th Ave N Seattle, WA.
This time we make the assumption that the address is deemed "invalid"
by the LoST server because there is no such thing as "15th Ave N"
within the LoST server's data for the city of Seattle. However, we
also happen to know for this example that there are two addresses
within the address dataset that are "similar", when all parts of the
address are taken as a whole. These similar addresses that could be
suggested to the user are as follows:
similar address #1: 6000 15th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98107
similar address #2: 6000 15th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105
This extension would allow the LoST server to include the above
similar addresses as civicAddress elements in the response to
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
locationValidation. The next section shows examples of the LoST
request and response xml message fragments for the above valid and
invalid scenarios, returning the complete or similar addresses,
respectively.
4. Returned Location Information
The LoST server implementing this extension MAY include
completeLocation or similarLocation within the locationValidation
portion of the findService response. completeLocation and
similarLocation contain a list of civic address elements identical to
the elements used in the location element with the "civic profile" in
[RFC5222] or another profile derived from the civic profile.
The LoST server MAY include more than one similarLocation elements in
the response. If there are too many possible locations, the server
MAY return none, or it MAY return the few it considers most likely.
The definition of "few" is left to the implementation of the LoST
server. The server is unable to know what the intended location
information was suppose to be; it is guessing. Therefore the correct
location may or may not be one of the similarLocation elements the
server provides, and the client cannot assume that any of them are
the correct one.
Where a LoST server contains additional location information relating
to that civic address, the findServiceResponse message MAY return
additional location information along with the original validated
civic address elements in order to form a complete location based on
local implementation policy in the completeLocation element. The
completeLocation element MUST NOT be returned in response messages
where any civic address elements occur in the invalid list of the
response, or where the set of civic address elements in the request
do not identify a unique location. The complete location MUST NOT
contain any elements that would be marked as invalid, or cause an
error, if a recipient of that location performs a subsequent
findService request using the complete location. However, if a
subsequent request includes the complete location, the corresponding
request MAY include elements in the unchecked list.
Clients can control the return of additional location information by
including an optional returnAdditionalLocation attribute with
possible values "none", "similar", "complete" or "any". Where "none"
means to not return additional location information, "similar" and
"complete" mean to only return the respective type of additional
location information (if the server could send any) and "any" means
to include similar and/or complete location (if the server could send
any). If the request includes this option, the server MUST NOT send
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
location information contravening the client's request. Not
including this option in the request is equivalent to "none".
The server may determine that there are many possible similar
locations and decide not to send them all. The number of similar
locations sent is entirely up to the server. The server MAY include
a similarLocationsLimited attribute which contains a non-zero integer
of the number of similar locations not included in the response. The
server is NOT obligated to make this number accurate, in that there
may be more than the indicated similar locations available in the
data held by the server.
Clients MAY ignore the location information this extension defines in
the response. The information is optional to send, and optional to
use. In the case where the location information in the request was
valid, this extension does not change the validity. In the case
where the location information in the request is invalid, but
alternate location information is returned, the original location
remains invalid, and the LoST server does not change the mapping
response other than optionally including the information defined by
this extension.
completeLocation and similarLocation use the locationInformation
element from [RFC5222] updated by
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes] including the profile attribute
which is useful if the request contains location information in a
profile derived from the civic profile. The profile attribute MUST
be included in both the request and the response and MUST be the same
profile in both.
5. Examples
5.1. Complete Location returned for Valid Location response
Based on the example input request, returned location information is
provided in a findServiceResponse message when the original input
address is considered valid, but is missing some additional data that
the LoST server has.
<!-- =====Request=================================== -->
<findService xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
validateLocation="true"returnAdditionalLocation="any">
<location id="587cd3880" profile="civic">
<civicAddress
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:mxl:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<ca:country>US</ca:country>
<A1>WA</A1>
<A3>Seattle</A3>
<RD>15th</RD>
<STS>Ave</STS>
<POD>NW</POD>
<HNO>6000</HNO>
</civicAddress>
</location>
<service>urn:service:sos</service>
</findService>
<!-- =====Response================================== -->
<findServiceResponse >
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
xmlns:rli="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1">
xmlns:ca="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<mapping
expires="NO-CACHE"
lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z"
source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="8799e346000098aa3e">
<displayName xml:lang="en">Seattle 911</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos</service>
<uri>sip:seattle-911@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<locationValidation
<valid>ca:country ca:A1 ca:A3 ca:RD ca:STS ca:POD ca:HNO<
/valid>
<invalid></invalid>
<unchecked></unchecked>
<rli:completeLocation> profile="civic" <!-- completed address -->
<ca:civicAddress>
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
<ca:country>US</ca:country>
<ca:A1>WA</ca:A1>
<ca:A2>KING COUNTY</ca:A2>
<ca:A3>SEATTLE</ca:A3>
<ca:RD>15TH</ca:RD>
<ca:STS>AVENUE</ca:STS>
<ca:POD>NORTHWEST</ca:POD>
<ca:HNO>6000</ca:HNO>
<ca:PC>98106</ca:PC>
<ca:PCN>SEATTLE</ca:PCN>
</ca:civicAddress>
</rli:completeLocation>
</locationValidation>
<path>
<via source="authoritative.example"/>
</path>
<locationUsed id="587cd3880"/>
</findServiceResponse>
<!-- =============================================== -->
5.2. Similar Location returned for Invalid Location response
The following example shows returned location information provided in
a findServiceResponse message when the original input address is
considered invalid, because of the unmatchable POD data (in this
example) that the LoST server needs to provide a unique mapping.
<!-- =====Request=================================== -->
<findService xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
validateLocation="true">
<location id="587cd3880" profile="civic"
returnAdditionalLocation="any">
<civicAddress
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
<ca:country>US</ca:country>
<ca:A1>WA</ca:A1>
<ca:A2>KING COUNTY</ca:A2>
<ca:A3>SEATTLE</ca:A3>
<ca:RD>15TH</ca:RD>
<ca:STS>AVENUE</ca:STS>
<ca:HNO>6000</ca:HNO>
<ca:PC>98106</ca:PC>
<ca:PCN>SEATTLE</ca:PCN>
</civicAddress>
</location>
<service>urn:service:sos</service>
</findService>
<!-- =====Response=================================== -->
<findServiceResponse>
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
xmlns:rli="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1">
xmlns:ca="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<mapping
expires="NO-CACHE"
lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z"
source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="8799e346000098aa3e">
<displayName xml:lang="en">Seattle 911</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos</service>
<uri>sip:seattle-911@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<locationValidation
<valid>ca:country ca:A1 ca:A3 ca:STS ca:RD</valid>
<invalid>ca:POD</invalid>
<unchecked>ca:HNO</unchecked>
<rli:similarLocation profile="civic"> <!-- similar location info -->
<ca:civicAddress> <!-- similar address #1 -->
<ca:country>US</ca:country>
<ca:A1>WA</ca:A1>
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
<ca:A2>KING COUNTY</ca:A2>
<ca:A3>SEATTLE</ca:A3>
<ca:RD>15TH</ca:RD>
<ca:STS>AVENUE</ca:STS>
<ca:POD>NORTHWEST</ca:POD>
<ca:HNO>6000</ca:HNO>
<ca:PC>98106</ca:PC>
<ca:PCN>SEATTLE</ca:PCN>
</ca:civicAddress>
</rli:similarLocation>
<rli:similarLocation profile="civic">
<ca:civicAddress> <!-- similar address #2 -->
<ca:country>US</ca:country>
<ca:A1>WA</ca:A1>
<ca:A2>KING COUNTY</ca:A2>
<ca:A3>SEATTLE</ca:A3>
<ca:RD>15TH</ca:RD>
<ca:STS>AVENUE</ca:STS>
<ca:POD>NORTHEAST</ca:POD>
<ca:HNO>6000</ca:HNO>
<ca:PC>98105</ca:PC>
<ca:PCN>SEATTLE</ca:PCN>
</ca:civicAddress>
</rli:similarLocation>
</locationValidation>
<path>
<via source="authoritative.example"/>
</path>
<locationUsed id="587cd3880"/>
</findServiceResponse>
<!-- =============================================== -->
6. XML Schema
This section provides the schema of LoST extensions based on the
schema in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes]
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<!-- Import base Lost -->
<xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"/>
<!-- extend findService by placing the following
at the extensionPoint
in the included commonRequestPattern: -->
<xs:attribute name="returnAdditionalLocation" minOccurs="0">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration value="none"/>
<xs:enumeration value="similar"/>
<xs:enumeration value="complete"/>
<xs:enumeration value="any"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<!-- extend locationValidation by placing the following
at the extensionPoint -->
<xs:group ref="similarLocation"/>
<xs:group ref="completeLocation"/>
<!-- where -->
<xs:group name="similarLocation">
<attribute name="similarLocationsLimited" minOccurs="0">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="location" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:group>
<xs:group name="completeLocation">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="location" maxOccurs="1"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:group>
</xs:schema>
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
7. Security Considerations
Whether the input to the LoST server is valid or invalid, the LoST
server ultimately determines what it considers to be valid. Even in
the case where the input location is valid, the requester still might
not actually understand where that location is. For this kind of
valid location use case, this described extension would typically
return more location information than the requester started with,
which might reveal more about the location. While this might be very
desirable in some scenarios including, for example, supporting an
emergency call, it might not be as desirable for other services.
Individual LoST server implementations SHOULD consider the risk of
releasing more detail versus the value in doing so. Generally, it is
not expected that this would be a significant problem as the
requester must have enough location information to be considered
valid, which in most cases is enough to uniquely locate the address.
Providing more CAtypes generally doesn't actually reveal anything
more. For invalid locations that are submitted, this extension would
allow the LoST response to include location information which is
similar to what was input, again resulting in more information
provided in the response than was known during input. LoST server
implementations SHOULD evaluate the particular use cases where this
extension is supported, and weigh the risks around its use. Many
similar database services available today via the Internet offer
similar features, such as "did you mean", and address completion, so
this capability is not introducing any fundamentally new threat.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. XML Schema Registration
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:lost-rli1
Registrant Contact: IETF ECRIT Working Group, Brian Rosen
(br@brianrosen.net).
XML Schema: The XML schema to be registered is contained
in Section 7.
8.2. LoST-RLI Namespace Registration
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1
Registrant Contact: IETF ECRIT Working Group, Brian Rosen
(br@brianrosen.net).
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="2.0"?>
<!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 Returned Location Information Namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for LoST Returned Location Information extension</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost-rli1</h2>
<p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc????.txt">
RFC????</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes]
Rosen, B., "Validation of Locations Around a Planned
Change", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-01 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4776] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses
Configuration Information", RFC 4776,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4776, November 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4776>.
[RFC5139] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location
Format for Presence Information Data Format Location
Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, DOI 10.17487/RFC5139,
February 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5139>.
[RFC5774] Wolf, K. and A. Mayrhofer, "Considerations for Civic
Addresses in the Presence Information Data Format Location
Object (PIDF-LO): Guidelines and IANA Registry
Definition", BCP 154, RFC 5774, DOI 10.17487/RFC5774,
March 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5774>.
[RFC6848] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., Barnes, R., Rosen, B., and
R. George, "Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the
Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-
LO)", RFC 6848, DOI 10.17487/RFC6848, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6848>.
Authors' Addresses
Roger Marshall
Comtech TCS
2401 Elliott Avenue
2nd Floor
Seattle, WA 98121
US
Email: rmarshall@comtechtel.com
Jeff Martin
Comtech TCS
2401 Elliott Avenue
2nd Floor
Seattle, WA 98121
US
Email: jmartin@comtechtel.com
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Returned Location Extensions to LoST October 2018
Brian Rosen
Neustar
470 Conrad Dr
Mars, PA 16046
US
Email: br@brianrosen.net
Marshall, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 17]
