Geopriv WG James Polk
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track (PS) March 9, 2009
Expires: September 9, 2009
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and IPv6
Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-04
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made
publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an
adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in
such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF
Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created
outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for
publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than
English.
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, 2009.
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.
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
Legal
This documents and the information contained therein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Abstract
This document creates a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
Option for the downloading of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
pointing to the geolocation record of an endpoint. This URI, called
a Location-by-Reference (LbyR), points to a record on a location
server which tracks the geolocation of the endpoint. Once
downloaded by an endpoint, this LbyR can be forwarded to another
entity, to be dereferenced if this entity wants to learn the
geolocation of the sender endpoint.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Format of the DHCP LbyrElement Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Overall Format of LbyrElement Option in IPv4 . . . . . 5
2.2. Overall Format of LbyrElement Option in IPv6 . . . . . 6
2.3. LbyrElement Format for both IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . 6
3. DHC Option Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Architectural Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Harmful URIs and URLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Valid Location URI Schemes or Types . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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].
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
1. Introduction
This document creates a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
Option for the downloading of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
pointing to the geolocation record of an endpoint. A client, for
example, can be a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent (UA)
[RFC3261] (i.e., a Phone). This URI, called a
Location-by-Reference (LbyR), points to a record on a location
server [ID-LBYR-REQ] which tracks the geolocation of the endpoint
(through means not defined in this document). The LbyR record
stores the Geolocation of a Location Target, where the location of
the Location Target changing at the record, but not in the URI used
to access the record. Once downloaded by an endpoint (the target in
this case), this LbyR can be forwarded to another entity, for
example, using SIP as defined in [ID-SIP-LOC], to be dereferenced if
this second entity wants to learn the geolocation of the Location
Target.
The act of dereferencing location is explained in [ID-SIP-LOC],
which demonstrates how a Location Recipient of an LbyR subscribes to
a Location Server to attain the location of the Target. If the
dereferencer has permission, defined in [ID-GEO-POL], the location
of the target will be returned to the Location Seeker. The Location
Server will grant permission to location inquires based on the rules
established by a Rule Holder [RFC3693]. The Location Server has the
ability to challenge any Location Seeker's request, thereby
providing additive security properties to location revelation.
Endpoints will require their geographic location for a growing
number of services. A popular use-case currently is for emergency
services, in which SIP requires its location to be placed in a SIP
INVITE request [ID-SIP-LOC] towards a public safety answering point
(PSAP), i.e., an emergency response center. The reason for this is
twofold:
o An emergency services SIP request must be routed/retargeted to the
appropriate PSAP that is local to where the calling device is.
o The first responders require the UA's location in order to know
where to be dispatched to render aid to the caller.
Including location in the SIP request is the most efficient means of
accomplishing both requirements above.
There are other use-cases, such as calling the appropriate Pizza Hut
without having to look up in a directory which store is closest. A
UA knowing its location can call a main/national/international Pizza
Hut number or address and let the UA's location tell Pizza Hut
enough information to have them route/retarget the SIP request to
the appropriate store within the Pizza Hut organization to deliver
the pizza to the caller's location.
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
A problem exists within existing RFCs that provide location to the
UA ([RFC3825] and [RFC4776]), these types of DHCP Options for
geolocation requires an update of the entire location information
(LI)every time a UA moves. Not all UAs will move frequently, but
some will. Refreshing location every time a UA moves does not scale
in certain networks/environments, such as IP based cellular
networks, enterprise networks or service provider networks with
mobile endpoints. An 802.11 based access network is one example of
this. Constantly updating LI to the endpoints might not scale in
mobile (residential or enterprise or municipal) networks in which
the UA is moving through more than one network attachment point,
perhaps as a person walks or drives with their UA down a
neighborhood street or apartment complex or a shopping center.
If the UA were provided a URI reference to retain and hand out when
it wants or needs to convey its location (in a protocol other than
DHCP), a Location URI reference that would not change as the UA's
location changes, scaling issues would be significantly reduced to
needing an update of the URI only when a client changes
administrative domains - which is much less often. This delivery of
an indirect location has the added benefit of not using up valuable
or limited bandwidth to the UA with the constant updates. It also
relieves the UA from having to determine when it has moved far
enough to consider asking for a refresh of its location. Many
endpoints will not have this ability, so relying on it could prove
fruitless. Once the UA has a Location URI, a service provider,
however it Sights the Location Target, as described in RFC 3693
[RFC3693], would merely update the actual location in the LIS
record, i.e., the record the URI points towards. This document does
not define how this update is done, as it will not be done with
DHCP.
In enterprise networks, if a known location is assigned to each
individual Ethernet port in the network, a device that attaches to
the network a wall-jack (directly associated with a specific
Ethernet Switch port) will be associated with a known location via a
unique circuit-ID that's used by the RAIO Option defined in RFC 3046
[RFC3046]. This assumes wall-jacks have an updated wiremap
database. RFC 3825 and RFC 4776 would return an LCI value of
location. This document specifies how a Location URI is returned by
DHCP. Behind the DHCP server, in the backend of the network, via
the (logical entity of a) LIS has a PIDF-LO in each location record
a Location URI points to.
If an 802.11 Access Port (AP) is at a specific known location within
this enterprise network, all wireless Ethernet devices attaching to
the network through this AP could be given the same location in
their respective location records because the DHCP server would know
each device was attaching from a known location, in this case, the
same location. This is assuming no 802.11 triangulation is
occurring, this would give a more precise location to be placed in
the location record (URI) of each device.
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
If local configuration has the requirement of only assigning unique
Location URIs to each client, then unique LbyRs will be given out,
though they will all have the same location at the record, relieving
the backend Sighter from individually maintaining each location
independently.
This Option can be useful in WiMAX connected endpoints or IP
cellular endpoints. The Location URI Option can be configured as a
client if it is a router, such as a residential home gateway, with
the ability to communicate to downstream endpoints as a server.
The means of challenge by any given LIS can vary, and a policy
established by a rulemaker [RFC3693] for a Location Target as to
what type of challenge(s) are used, how strong a challenge is used
or how precise the location information is given to a requestor. All
of this is outside the scope of this document (since this will not
be accomplished using DHCP).
This document IANA registers the new IPv4 and IPv6 DHC Options for a
Location URI.
2. Format of the DHCP LbyrElement Option
2.1 Overall Format of LbyrElement Option in IPv4
The LbyrElement Option format for IPv4 is as follows:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code XXX | Length=XX | Ver | Resv | .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ .
. LbyrElements... ...
. (see section 2.3 for details) ... .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. IPv4 Fields for this LbyrElement Option
Code XXX: The code for this DHCPv4 option (IANA assigned).
Length=XX: The length of this option, counted in bytes - not
counting the Code and Length bytes. This is a variable
length Option, therefore the length value will change
based on the length of the LbyR within the Option.
Ver: (4 bits) The version of this Option. This will specify
version 1.
Resv: (4 bits) reserved for future use.
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
LbyrElement: see section 2.3 for details
2.2 Overall Format of LbyrElement Option in IPv6
The LbyrElement Option format for IPv6 is as follows:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| option-code | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ver | Resv | .
+---------------+ .
. LbyrElements... .
. (see section 2.3 for details) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. IPv6 fields of this LbyrElement Option
option-code: The code for this DHCPv6 option (IANA assigned).
option-len: The length of this option, counted in bytes - not
counting the Code and Length bytes. This is a variable
length Option, therefore the length value will change
based on the shape within the Option.
Ver: See above (Section 2.1). This will specify version 1.
Resv: See above (Section 2.1).
LbyrElement: see below (Section 2.3 for details).
2.3 LbyrElement Format for both IPv4 and IPv6
The LbyrElement, in both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, have the following
format:
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LbyrType | LbyrLength | LbyrValue ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. LbyrElement Format for both IPv4 and IPv6
LbyrType: A one-byte identifier of the data location value.
LbyrLength: The length, in bytes, of the LbyrValue, not including
the LbyrLength field itself, up to a maximum of 255
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
bytes.
LbyrValue: The LbyrElement value, as described in detail below.
The LbyrValue is always in UTP-8.
The LbyrTypes this document defines (and IANA registers) for a point
are:
LbyrType=1 Location-by-Reference URI - This is the URI pointing
at the location record where the PIDF-LO resides which
indicates the location of the Location Target.
LbyrType=2 Valid-For - The time, in seconds, this URI is to be
considered Valid for dereferencing. The timer
associated with this LbyrType starts upon receipt of
this Option.
The LbyrType=2 (Valid-For) indicates how long, in seconds, the
client is to consider this LbyrType=1 (Location-by-Reference URI)
valid before performing a refresh of this Option, with a refreshed
LbyrType=2 (Valid-For) value. A refresh MAY be done merely at the
normal DHCP refresh rate, or necessitated by this timer, perhaps
with the client only requesting this Option be refreshed.
It is RECOMMENDED when the counter associated with this LbyrType=2
(Valid-For) value has passed, the client perform a refresh of this
Option. For example, if 16000 was the initial value of the
LbyrType=2 (Valid-For) value, when 8000 seconds have passed, the
Option SHOULD be refreshed.
The LbyrType=2 (Valid-For) is not mandated for use by this document.
However, its presence MUST NOT cause any error in handling the
Location URI (i.e., if not understood, it MUST be ignored).
This Option format is highly extensible. Additional LbyrType types
created MUST be done so through IANA registration with peer review
and an RFC.
3. DHC Option Operation
The [RFC3046] RAIO MUST be utilized to provide the appropriate
indication to the DHCP Server where this DISCOVER or REQUEST message
came from, in order to supply the correct response. That said, this
Option SHOULD NOT be in a DISCOVER message, because there is zero
knowledge by the client of which Server will answer.
Caution SHOULD always be used involving the creation of large
Options, meaning that this Option MAY need to be in its own INFORM,
OPTION or ACK message.
It is RECOMMENDED to avoid building URIs, with any parameters,
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
larger than what a single DHCP response can be. However, if a
message is larger than 255 bytes, concatenation is allowed, per RFC
3396 [RFC3396].
Per [RFC2131], subsequent LbyrElement Options, which are
non-concatenated, overwrite the previous value.
Location URIs MUST NOT reveal identity information of the user of
the device, since DHCP is a cleartext delivery protocol. For
example, Location URIs such as
sips:34LKJH534663J54@example.com
SHOULD be done, providing no identity information, rather than a
Location URI such as this
sips:aliceisinatlanta@example.com
This Option is for only communications between a DHCP client and a
DHCP server. It can be solicited (requested) by the client, or it
can be pushed by the server without a request for it. DHCP Options
not understood are ignored. A DHCP server might or might not have
the location of a client, therefore direct knowledge of a
Location URI within the server. If a server does not have a
client's location, a communication path (or request) to a LIS would
be necessary.
The LIS function, which is logical, is what creates the LbyR. The
coordination between the logical entity of a DHCP server and the
logical entity of a LIS as to which circuit-ID gets which
Location URI is not done via DHCP, therefore it is not defined
here. Further, any location revelation rules and policies a user
has regarding the treatment of their actual location, and who can
access (what precision of) their location will be done with other
than DHCP, and likely will be done before anything other than
default authentication and authorization permissions are used when a
Location Seeker, as defined in RFC 3693, requests a for a Target's
location.
Differentiating clients is done via client identifiers. Therefore,
in many implementations, each client can be assigned unique LbyRs,
though this is not mandatory.
Any dereferencing of a client's Location URI would not involve DHCP
either, but more likely by an application layer protocol such as
SIP, through a subscription to the Location URI on the LIS. The LIS
would also handle all authentication and authorization of location
requests, which is also not performed with DHCP, therefore not
defined here.
In the case of residential gateways being DHCP servers, they usually
perform as DHCP clients in a hierarchical fashion up into a service
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
provider's network DHCP server(s), or learn what information to
provide via DHCP to residential clients through a protocol such as
PPP. In these cases, the Location URI would likely indicate the
residence's civic address to all wired or wireless clients within
that residence. This is not inconsistent with what's stated above.
3.1 Architectural Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made for use of this LbyrElement
Option for a client to learn its Location URI (in no particular
order):
o Any user control (what Geopriv calls a 'rulemaker') for the
parameters and profile options a Location-Object will have is out
of scope of this document, but assumed to take place via an
external web interface between the user and the LIS (direct or
indirect).
o Any user attempting to gain access to the information at this URI
will be challenged by the LIS, not the DHCP server for
credentials and permissions.
3.2 Harmful URIs and URLs
There are, in fact, some types of URIs that are not good to receive,
due to security concerns. For example, any URLs that can have
scripts, such as "data:" URLs, and some "HTTP:" URLs that go to web
pages - that have scripts. Therefore,
o URIs received via this Option SHOULD NOT be sent to a
general-browser to connect to a web page, because they could have
harmful scripts.
o This Option SHOULD NOT contain "data:" URLs, because they could
contain harmful scripts.
Instead of listing all the types of URIs and URLs that can be
misused or potentially have harmful affects, Section 3.3 IANA
registers acceptable Location URI schemes (or types).
3.3 Valid Location URI Schemes or Types
Therefore, this document specifies which URI types are acceptable as
a Location URI scheme (or type):
1. sip:
2. sips:
3. pres:
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
These Location URI types are IANA registered in section 4.2 of this
document.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1 The IPv4 Option number for this Option
This document IANA registers this IPv4 Option number XXX (to be
assigned by IANA once this document becomes an RFC).
4.2 The IPv6 Option-Code for this Option
This document IANA registers this IPv6 Option-Code XXX (to be
assigned by IANA once this document becomes an RFC).
4.3 The Version number for this Option
This document IANA registers the version number 1 of this Option.
4.4 IANA Considerations for Acceptable Location URI Types
IANA is requested to create a new registry for acceptable Location
URI types.
The following 3 URI types are registered by this document:
1. sip:
2. sips:
3. pres:
Any additional Location URI types to be defined for use via
this DHC Option need to be created and IANA registered with peer
review and an RFC.
5. Security Considerations
Where critical decisions might be based on the value of this
Location URI option, DHCP authentication in [RFC3118] SHOULD be used
to protect the integrity of the DHCP options.
A real concern with RFC 3118 it is that not widely deployed because
it requires keys on both ends of a communication to work (i.e., in
the client and in the server). Most implementations do not
accommodate this.
DHCP is a broadcast initially (a client looking for a server),
unicast response (answer from a server) type of protocol. It is not
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
secure in a practical sense. In today's infrastructures, it will be
primarily used over a wired, switched Ethernet network, requiring
physical access to within a wire to gain access. Further, within an
802.11 wireless network, the 802.11 specs have layer 2 security
mechanisms in place to help prevent a Location URI from being
learned by an unauthorized entity.
That said, having the Location URI does not mean this unauthorized
entity has the location of a client. The Location URI still needs
to be dereferenced to learn the location of the client. This
dereferencing function, which is not done using DHCP, is done by
requesting the location record at a Location Information Server, or
LIS, which is a defined entity built to challenge each request it
receives based on a joint policy of what is called a rulemaker. The
rulemaker, as defined in RFC 3693, configures the authentication and
authorization policies for the location revelation of a Target.
This includes giving out more or less precise location information
in an answer, therefore it can answer a bad-hat, but not allow it
from learning exactly where a user is. The rulemaker, which is a
combination of the default rules set up by the location provider and
those decided on by the user of the Target device. Likely, the
rules the user wants will not be allowed to go past some limits
established by the location provider, i.e., the administrator of the
LIS, for various capability or security reasons.
Penetrating a LIS is supposed to be hard, and hopefully vendors that
implement a LIS accomplish this goal.
As to the concerns about the Location URI itself, as stated in the
document here (in Section 3.), it must not have any user identifying
information in the URI string itself. The Location URI also must be
hard to guess that it belongs to a specific user. There is some
debate as to whether this Location URI need be a random alphanumeric
string or just unique. If the latter, there is some debate as to
the how we define unique. Is that through space as time, as RFC 3261
defines a SIP Call-ID needs to be (meaning: never a duplicate, ever,
by any device, ever)? Or is it unique to within a specific domain
for as long as it is actively assigned to a client (plus some
interval).
When implementing a DHC server that will serve clients across an
uncontrolled network, one should consider the potential security
risks therein.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to James Winterbottom, Marc Linsner, Roger Marshall and
Robert Sparks for their useful comments. And to Lisa Dusseault for
her concerns about the types of URIs that can cause harm. To
Richard Barnes for inspiring a more robust Security Considerations
section.
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC
3046, January 2001.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997.
[RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
[RFC3261] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J.
Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, May 2002.
[RFC3265] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific
Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002.
[RFC3396] T. Lemon, S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, November
2002
7.2. Informative References
[ID-SIP-LOC] J. Polk, B. Rosen, "SIP Location Conveyance", "work in
progress", Mar 2009
[RFC3825] J. Polk, J. Schnizlein, M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004
[RFC4776] H. Schulzrinne, " Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
Information ", RFC 4776, November 2006
[ID-LBYR-REQ] R. Marshall, "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
Mechanism", "work in progress", Feb 2009
[RFC3693] J. Cuellar, J. Morris, D. Mulligan, J. Peterson. J. Polk,
"Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004
[ID-GEO-POL] H. Schulzrinne, H. Tschofenig, J. Morris, J. Cuellar, J.
Polk, "Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing
Privacy Preferences for Location Information", "work in
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Geopriv DHCP LbyrElement Option Mar 2009
progress", Feb 2009
Authors' Address
James Polk
3913 Treemont Circle
Colleyville, Texas 76034
USA
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Polk Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 13]