ECRIT J. Winterbottom
Internet-Draft M. Thomson
Intended status: BCP Andrew Corporation
Expires: September 9, 2010 March 8, 2010
Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries
draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-02
Abstract
This document describes how holes can be specified in geodetic
service boundaries. One means of implementing a search solution in a
service database, such as one might provide with a LoST server, is
described.
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 September 9, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Specifying Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. GML Polygons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Holes in GML Polygons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Service Boundary Specification and Selection Algorithm . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
1. Introduction
The LoST protocol [RFC5222] describes a protocol that's primary
purpose is to map service and locations to destination addresses.
LoST does this by provisioning boundary maps or areas against service
URNs. The boundary is a polygon made up of sets of geodetic
coordinates specifying an enclosed area. In some circumstances an
area enclosed by a polygon, also known as an exterior polygon, may
contain exception areas, or holes, that for the same service must
yield a different destination to that described by the larger area.
This document describes how holes SHOULD be specified in service
boundaries defined using a GML encoding for the polygons and their
internal elements (holes). GML polygons are based on elements
defined in [ISO-19107].
o--------------o
/ \
/ /\ \
/ + +-----+ \
o | Hole \ o
| | 1 / |
| +-------+ |<--- Primary Polygon
| +-------+ |
| / Hole | |
o \ 2 | o
\ +-----+ + /
\ \/ /
\ /
o--------------o
Figure 1: Holes in a Polygon
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
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 [RFC2119].
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
3. Specifying Holes
Holes related to an exterior boundary polygon MUST adhere to the
following rules:
Rule 1: Two holes MUST NOT have more than one point of
intersection. If two or more holes share a common set of
boundaries then to the primary polygon these represent a
single hole in the service. The internal elements (holes)
should have common boundaries removed and a single hole
created irrespective of whether the excluded area is itself
made up of multiple service boundaries.
o--------------o o--------------o
/ \ / \
/ /\ \ / /\ \
/ + +-----+ \ / + +-----+ \
o | Hole \ o o | \ o
| | 1 \ | | | One \ |
| +-+-------+ | =========> | +-+ Hole + |
| / Hole | | | / | |
o \ 2 | o o \ | o
\ +-----+ + / \ +-----+ + /
\ \/ / \ \/ /
\ / \ /
o--------------o o--------------o
Incorrect Correct
Figure 2: Incorrect Hole Specification with Boundary Sharing
Rule 2: A hole MUST NOT have more than one point of intersection
with the outer-boundary of the primary (exterior) polygon.
If more than one point of intersection occurs the primary
polygon is either doesn't have a hole, it has an inlet as
in Figure 3, or the primary polygon SHOULD be expressed as
two polygons as in Figure 4.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
+------- Inlet
|
v
o---+-----+----o o---o o----o
/ |%%%%%| \ / | | \
/ /%%%%%%| \ / / | \
/ +%%%%%%%| \ / o o \
o |%%%%%%%%\ o o | \ o
| |%%%%%%%%%\ | | | \ |
| +-+%%%%%%%%+ | ========> | o-o o |
| /%%%%%%%%| | | / | |
o \%%%%%%%%| o o \ | o
\ +-----+ + / \ o-----o o /
\ \/ / \ \/ /
\ / \ /
o--------------o o--------------o
Incorrect Correct
Figure 3: Correct Specification of an Inlet
A--q-----------B A-q q----------B
/ | | \ / | | \
/ | | \ / | | \
/ z r-----s \ / P z r-----s P \
H | \ C H o | \ o C
| | One \ | | l | \ l |
| y-x Hole t | ========> | y y-x t y |
| / | | | g / | g |
G \ | D G o \ | o D
\ / v---u / \ n / v---u n /
\ \ / / \ 1 \ / 2 /
\ \ / / \ \ / /
F-----w--------E F-----w w--------E
1 Polgon with a 2 Polygons that map
Dividing Hole to the same service
Figure 4: Correct Specification of Hole with Multiple Outer-Boundary
Intersections
Similarly, a polygon containing a hole with an island must be
represented as two polygons mapping to the same service.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
Rule 3: A hole MUST be a legal polygon in accordance with the
geoshape specification [geoshape]. There is no restriction
on the number of points that may be used to express the
perimeter of the hole.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
4. GML Polygons
The GML encoding of a polygon defines a enclosed exterior boundary,
with the first and last points of boundary being the same. Consider
the example in Figure 5.
B--------------C
/ \
/ \
/ \
A D
\ /
\ /
\ /
F--------------E
<gml:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:exterior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A-->
<gml:pos>43.111 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--F-->
<gml:pos>43.111 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--E-->
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.122</gml:pos> <!--D-->
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--C-->
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--B-->
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A-->
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:exterior>
</gml:Polygon>
Figure 5: Hexagon and Associated GML
Note that polygon vertices in Figure 5 are expressed using <pos>
elements for clarity. The vertices can also be expressed using a
<posList> element.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
5. Holes in GML Polygons
A hole is specified in the polygon by defining an interior boundary.
The points defining the internal boundary define the area represented
by the hole in the primary (exterior) polygon. The shaded area in
Figure 6 is represented by the 4 points of the interior boundary
specified by (w,z,y,x).
F-------------E
/ \
/ w-------------x \
/ |/////////////| \
A |/////////////| D
\ |/////////////| /
\ z-------------y /
\ /
B-------------C
<gml:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:exterior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A-->
<gml:pos>43.111 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--B-->
<gml:pos>43.111 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--C-->
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.122</gml:pos> <!--D-->
<gml:pos>43.511 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--E-->
<gml:pos>43.511 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--F-->
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos> <!--A-->
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:exterior>
<gml:interior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--w-->
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--x-->
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--y-->
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--z-->
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--w-->
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:interior>
</gml:Polygon>
Figure 6: Hexagon with Hole
Interior parts are specified in clockwise direction, such that the
upward normal is opposite to the upward normal of the exterior part.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
6. Service Boundary Specification and Selection Algorithm
A service boundary is represented by a polygon that may have many
vertices. The enclosed area of the polygon represents the area in
which a service, expressed as a service URN, maps to a single URI.
Figure 6 is used to illustrate two service boundaries. The first
service boundary A->F shall be referred to as area-A, and the second
service boundary w->z shall be referred to as area-w. Furthermore,
area-A is directly represented by the GML encoding provided in
Figure 6. Area-w is represented as a hole in area-A by the interior
boundary. Since area-w is also a service boundary, a separate
polygon describing this area is also required and is shown in
Figure 7 (note the reversal of the vertices).
<gml:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:exterior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--w-->
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--z-->
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--y-->
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos> <!--x-->
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos> <!--w-->
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:exterior>
</gml:Polygon>
Figure 7: GML for Area-w
If this data were in a LoST server the data mappings may look similar
to the example in Figure 8. This is an example only and does not
represent actual LoST server provisioning or data transfer records.
The example XML will not complie.
<mapping xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
expires="2010-12-25T09:44:33Z"
lastUpdated="2010-03-08T03:48:22Z"
source="authoritative.foo.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111">
<displayName xml:lang="en">Outer Area Police</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
<gml:Polygon xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:exterior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos>
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
<gml:pos>43.111 -73.322</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.111 -73.222</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.122</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.511 -73.222</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.511 -73.322</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.311 -73.422</gml:pos>
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:exterior>
<!-- this is the service boundary hole -->
<gml:interior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.322</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.222</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos>
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:interior>
</gml:Polygon>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:area-A-pd@example.com</uri>
<uri>xmpp:area-A-pd@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>000</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<mapping xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
expires="2010-12-25T09:44:33Z"
lastUpdated="2010-03-08T03:48:22Z"
source="authoritative.foo.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111">
<displayName xml:lang="en">Inner Area Police</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
<gml:Polygon xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:exterior>
<gml:LinearRing>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.322</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.211 -73.222</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.222</gml:pos>
<gml:pos>43.411 -73.322</gml:pos>
</gml:LinearRing>
</gml:exterior>
</gml:Polygon>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:area-w-pd@example.com</uri>
<uri>xmpp:area-w-pd@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>000</serviceNumber>
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
</mapping>
Figure 8: Service Boundary Specifications
It is considered likely that LoST servers will need to provide
responses sufficiently quickly to allow real-time queries to be
performed as part of an emergency call routing flow. It is for this
reason that databases supporting native geospatial query techniques
are desirable and that service boundary specifications that are
easily mapped to internal data structures are preferred. Using
interior boundaries makes support for this operation easy, while
allowing an arbitrary number of holes in a service boundary to be
specified.
Each polygon is stored in the geospatial database and mapped to a
service URN and destination URI. Many geospatial databases natively
support polygons with interior exclusions. Without native support,
interior boundaries can be stored against the polygon and can checked
separately. A location falls within the area described by a polygon
if it is within the exterior boundary and not within any interior
boundary.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any security issues.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
8. IANA Considerations
There are no specific IANA considerations for this document.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Carl Reed for input provided to the list some months back
and for reviewing this document. Thanks to Michael Haberler for
suggesting that such a specification is required. Thanks to Avery
Penniston for review and feedback.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
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.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.
[geoshape]
Thomson, M. and C. Reed, "GML 3.1.1 PIDF-LO Shape
Application Schema for use by the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF)", Candidate OpenGIS Implementation
Specification 06-142r1, Version: 1.0, April 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost-sync]
Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Synchronizing
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based
Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements",
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-09 (work in progress),
March 2010.
[ISO-19107]
ISO, "Geographic information - Spatial Schema", ISO
Standard 19107, First Edition, 5 2003.
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Service Boundary Holes March 2010
Authors' Addresses
James Winterbottom
Andrew Corporation
Andrew Building (39)
Wollongong University Campus
Northfields Avenue
Wollongong, NSW 2522
AU
Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
Martin Thomson
Andrew Corporation
Andrew Building (39)
Wollongong University Campus
Northfields Avenue
Wollongong, NSW 2522
AU
Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com
Winterbottom & Thomson Expires September 9, 2010 [Page 17]
