GEOPRIV WG M. Barnes, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nortel
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 30, 2008
September 27, 2007
HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 March 30, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
A Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7 LCP) is described that
is used for retrieving location information from a server within an
access network. The protocol includes options for retrieving
location information either by-value or by-reference. The protocol
is an application-layer protocol that is independent of session-
layer; an HTTP, web services binding is specified.
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions & Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Location Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Location Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Indicating Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Protocol Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. "responseTime" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. "locationType" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2.1. "exact" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. "code" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. "message" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. "locationURI" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5.1. "expires" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. HTTP Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. HTTP Binding WSDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Return Routability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Transaction Layer Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Simple HTTP Binding Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Simple Location Request Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types . . . 23
10.4. Sample LIS WSDL Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http . . . . . . . . . 25
11.4. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml' . 26
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14. Changes since last Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements . . . . . . 31
A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship . . . . 32
A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship . . . . . 32
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 36
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
1. Introduction
The location of a Device is information that is useful for a number
of applications. The L7 Location Configuration Protocol (LCP)
problem statement and requirements document [11] provides some
scenarios in which a Device might rely on its access network to
provide the location information, such as fixed environments (e.g.,
DSL/Cable), mobile networks and wireless access networks. This
document describes a protocol that can be used to acquire Location
Information (LI) from a Location Information Server (LIS) within an
access network.
This specification identifies two methods for acquiring LI. Location
may be retrieved from a LIS by-value, that is, the Device may acquire
a literal location object describing the location of the Device.
Alternatively, the Device may request that the LIS provide a location
reference in the form of a location URI or set of location URIs,
allowing the Device to distribute its LI by-reference. Both of these
methods are compatible, and both can be provided concurrently from
the same LIS so that application needs can be addressed individually.
This specification defines an XML-based protocol that enables the
retrieval of LI from a LIS by a Device. This protocol can be bound
to any session-layer protocol, particularly those capable of MIME
transport; an HTTP binding is included as a minimum requirement.
2. Conventions & 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 [1].
This document uses the terms (and their acronym forms) Access
Provider (AP), Location Information (LI), Location Object (LO),
Device, Target, Location Generator (LG), Location Recipient (LR),
Rule Maker (RM) and Rule Holder (RH) as defined in RFC 3693, GEOPRIV
Requirements [7] . The terms Location Information Server (LIS),
Access Network, Access Provider (AP) and Access Network Provider are
used in the same context as defined in the L7 LCP Problem statement
and Requirements document [11]. The usage of the terms, Civic
Location/Address and Geodetic Location follows the usage in many of
the referenced documents.
3. Overview and Scope
This document describes an interface between a Device and a Location
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
Information Server (LIS). The LIS is present within the same
administrative domain as the Device (the access network). An Access
Provider (AP) operates the LIS so that Devices (and Targets) can
retrieve LI. The LIS exists because not all Devices are capable of
determining LI, and because, even if a device is able to determine
its own LI, it may be more efficient with assistance. This document
does not specify how LI is derived.
This document is based on the attribution of the LI to a Device and
not specifically a person (end user) or Target, based on the premise
that location determination technologies are generally designed to
locate a device and not a person. It is expected that, for most
applications, LI for the device can be used as an adequate substitute
for the end user's LI. Since revealing the location of the device
almost invariably reveals some information about the location of the
user of the device, the same level of privacy protection demanded by
a user is required for the device. This approach may require either
some additional assurances about the link between device and target,
or an acceptance of the limitation that unless the device requires
active user authentication, there is no guarantee that any particular
individual is using the device at that instant.
The following diagram shows the logical configuration of some of the
functional elements identified in [7] and the LIS defined in [11] and
where this protocol applies, with the Rule Maker and Target
represented by the role of the Device.
+---------------------------------------------+
| Access Network Provider |
| |
| +--------------------------------------+ |
| | Location Information Server | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------|---------------------'---------+ |
+----------|---------------------'------------+
| '
| '
HELD APP
| '
Rule Maker - _ +-----------+ +-----------+
o - - | Device | | Location |
<U\ | | - - - - | Recipient |
/ \ _ - - | | APP | |
Target - - +-----------+ +-----------+
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
Figure 1: Significant Roles
The interface between the Location Recipient (LR) and the Device
and/or LIS is application specific, as indicated by the APP
annotation in the diagram and it is outside the scope of the
document. An example of an APP interface between a device and LR can
be found in the SIP Location Conveyance document [22].
4. Protocol Overview
The HELD protocol facilitates retrieval of LI either by-value, as a
PIDF-LO document, or by-reference, as a Location URI. The policy
that describes to whom, and how, LI is granted is outside the scope
of this document and may be specified in separate specifications as
required. The Device must first discover the URI for the LIS for
sending the HELD protocol requests as identified by the requirement
in the L7 LCP problem statement and requirements [11]. The discovery
methods are specified in [15].
Where a Device requires LI directly, it can request that the LIS
create a PIDF-LO document. This approach fits well with a
configuration whereby the device directly makes use of the provided
PIDF-LO document. With this approach, the LIS needs to uniquely
identify the Device within the access network. The source IP address
of the request message is sufficient in most cases. Once the Device
is identified, the LIS uses network domain-specific information to
determine the location of the Device.
The details on the information that may be included in the PIDF-LO
MUST follow the subset of those rules relating to the construction of
the "location-info" element in the PIDF-LO Usage Clarification,
Considerations and Recommendations document [10]. The LIS MUST
follow those rules in generating the PIDF-LO in this case. Per the
GEOPRIV Location Object format specified in [8], the "entity" element
MUST reflect the Target of the Location Information. In addition,
the default values for <retransmission-allowed> and <retention-
expiry> as specified in [8] MUST be applied. A default value of "no"
SHALL be used for the <retransmission-allowed> element. A default
value of 24 hours SHALL be used for <retention-expiry> value of any
generated PIDF-LO documents. A LIS MAY provide a shorter value for
<retention-expiry> but MUST NOT provide a value longer than 24 hours.
Requesting location directly does not always address the requirements
of an application. A Device can request a location URI instead of
literal location. A Location URI is a URI [21] of any scheme, which
a Location Recipient (LR) can use to retrieve LI. A location URI
provided by a LIS can be assumed to be globally-addressable; that is,
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
anyone in possession of the URI can access the LIS. This does not in
any way suggest that the LIS is bound to reveal the location
associated with the location URI. This issue is deemed out of scope
for this document. The merits and drawbacks of using a Location URI
approach are discussed in [16].
5. Protocol Description
As discussed in Section 4, this protocol provides for the retrieval
of a Location or a Location URI from a LIS. Three messages are
defined to support the location retrieval: locationRequest,
locationResponse and error. Messages are defined as XML documents.
The Location Request (locationRequest) message is described in
Section 5.2. A Location Request message from a Device indicates
whether a Location (and the specific type of location) and/or a
Location URI should be returned. The LIS replies with a response
(locationResponse), including a PIDF-LO document and/or one or more
Location URIs in case of success, or an error message in case of an
error.
A MIME type "application/held+xml" is registered in Section 11.4 to
distinguish HELD messages from other XML document bodies. This
specification follows the recommendations and conventions described
in [19], including the naming convention of the type ('+xml' suffix)
and the usage of the 'charset' parameter.
Section 6 contains a more thorough description of the protocol
parameters, valid values, and how each should be handled. Section 7
contains a more specific definition of the structure of these
messages in the form of an XML Schema [12].
5.1. Protocol Binding
The HELD protocol is an application-layer protocol that is defined
independently of any lower layers. This means that any protocol can
be used to transport this protocol providing that it can provide a
few basic features:
o The protocol must have acknowledged delivery.
o The protocol must be able to correlate a response with a request.
o The protocol must provide authentication, privacy and protection
against modification.
This document includes a binding that uses a combination of HTTP [3],
TLS [2] and TCP [17] in Section 8.
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
5.2. Location Request
A location request message is sent from the Device to the LIS when it
requires LI. The type of LI that a Device requests is determined by
the type of LI that is included in the "locationType" element.
The location request is made by sending a document formed of a
"locationRequest" element. The LIS uses the source IP address of the
location request message as the primary source of identity for the
requesting device or target. It is anticipated that other Device
identities MAY be provided through schema extensions. The successful
response to a location request message is a document formed of a
"locationResponse" element, unless the request fails, in which case
the LIS MUST provide an error indication document.
The LIS MUST ignore any part of a location request message that it
does not understand.
5.3. Location Response
The response to a Location request MUST contain either a PIDF-LO
and/or Location URI(s), depending upon the requested "locationType".
A Location URI MUST NOT contain any information that could be used to
identify the Device or Target. It is RECOMMENDED that a Location URI
contain a public address for the LIS and an anonymous identifier,
such as a local identifer or unlinked pseudonym.
5.4. Indicating Errors
In the event of an error, the LIS MUST respond to the Device with an
error document. The error response applies to all request types and
MUST also be sent in response to any unrecognized request.
An error indication document consists of an "error" element. The
"error" element MUST include a "code" attribute that indicates the
type of error. A set of predefined error codes are included in
Section 6.3.
Error responses MAY also include a "message" attribute that can
include additional information. This information SHOULD be for
diagnostic purposes only, and MAY be in any language. The language
of the message SHOULD be indicated with an "xml:lang" attribute.
6. Protocol Parameters
This section describes, in detail the parameters that are used for
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
this protocol. Table 1 lists the top-level components used within
the protocol and where they are mandatory or optional for each of the
messages.
+------------------------+----------------+-----------------+-------+
| Parameter | Location | Location | Error |
| | Request | Response | |
+------------------------+----------------+-----------------+-------+
| responseTime | o | | |
| (Section 6.1) | | | |
| locationType | o | | |
| (Section 6.2) | | | |
| exact (Section 6.2.1) | o | | |
| code (Section 6.3) | | m | m |
| message (Section 6.4) | | | o |
| locationURI | | o | |
| (Section 6.5) | | | |
| expires | | m | |
| (Section 6.5.1) | | | |
+------------------------+----------------+-----------------+-------+
Table 1: Message Parameter Usage
6.1. "responseTime" Parameter
The "responseTime" attribute is optional and indicates to the LIS how
long the Device is prepared to wait for a response and/or the purpose
for which the Device needs the location. In the case of emergency
services, the purpose of obtaining the LI could be either for routing
a call to the appropriate PSAP or indicating the location to which
responders should be dispatched. The time values defined for those
purposes, emergencyRouting and emergencyDispatch, will likely be
governed by jurisdictional policies, and SHOULD be configurable on
the LIS.
The value of the time attribute is indicative only and the LIS is
under no obligation to strictly adhere to the time limit implied; any
enforcement of the time limit is left to the requesting Device. The
time attribute is expressed with a decimal seconds value, which may
include a decimal point. It is RECOMMENDED that systems support
millisecond precision for this parameter. The LIS SHOULD provide the
most accurate LI that can be determined within the specified interval
for the specific service.
The LIS MAY use the value of the "responseTime" attribute as input
when selecting the method of location determination, where multiple
such methods exist. If this parameter is absent, then the LIS MUST
return the most precise LI it is capable of determining.
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
6.2. "locationType" Parameter
The "locationType" element MAY be included in a location request
message. It contains a list of LI types that are requested by the
Device. The following list describes the possible values:
any: The LIS SHOULD attempt to provide LI in all forms available to
it. This value MUST be assumed as the default if no
"locationType" is specified. The LIS SHOULD return location
information in a form that is suited for routing and responding to
an emergency call in its jurisdiction. The LIS MAY alternatively
or additionally return a location URI.
geodetic: The LIS SHOULD return a geodetic location for the Target.
civic: The LIS SHOULD return a civic address for the Target. Any
type of civic address may be returned.
locationURI: The LIS SHOULD return a location URI for the Target.
The LIS SHOULD return the requested location type or types. The LIS
MAY provide additional location types, or it MAY provide alternative
types if the request cannot be satisfied for a requested location
type. If the "exact" attribute is present and set to "true" in a
location request, then a successful LIS response MUST provide the
requested location type only, with no additional location
information. The "exact" attribute has no effect when this element
is set to "any".
The "SHOULD"-strength requirement on this parameter is included to
allow for soft-failover. This enables a fixed client configuration
that prefers a specific location type without causing location
requests to fail when that location type is unavailable. Unless the
"exact" attribute is set, the LIS MUST provide LI in any available
form if it is unable to comply with the request.
For example, a notebook computer could be configured to retrieve
civic addresses, which is usually available from typical home or work
situations. However, when using a wireless modem, the LIS might be
unable to provide a civic address and thus provides a geodetic
address.
6.2.1. "exact" Attribute
When the "exact" attribute is set to "true", it indicates to the LIS
that the contents of the "locationType" parameter MUST be strictly
followed. The default value of "false" allows the LIS the option of
returning something beyond what is specified, such as a location URI
when only a civic location was requested.
A value of "true" indicates that the LIS MUST provide a location of
the requested type or types or MUST provide an error. The LIS MUST
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
provide the requested types only. The LIS MUST handle an exact
request that includes a "locationType" element set to "any" as if the
"exact" attribute were set to "false".
6.3. "code" Parameter
All "error" responses MUST contain a response code. All errors are
application-level errors, and MUST only be provided in successfully
processed transport-level responses. For example where HTTP is used
as the transport, HELD error messages MUST be accompanied by a 200 OK
HTTP response.
HELD error responses may be one of the following tokens:
requestError: This code indicates that the request was badly formed
in some fashion.
xmlError: This code indicates that the XML content of the request
was either badly formed or invalid.
generalLisError: This code indicates that an unspecified error
occurred at the LIS.
locationUnknown: This code indicates that the LIS could not
determine the location of the Device.
unsupportedMessage: This code indicates that the request was not
supported or understood by the LIS.
timeout: This code indicates that the LIS could not satisfy the
request within the time specified in the "responseTime" parameter.
cannotProvideLiType: This code indicates that the LIS was unable to
provide LI of the type or types requested. This code is used when
the "exact" attribute on the "locationType" parameter is set to
"true".
6.4. "message" Parameter
The "error" message MAY include a "message" attribute to convey some
additional, human-readable information about the result of the
request. This message MAY be included in any language, which SHOULD
be indicated by the "xml:lang", attribute. The default language is
assumed to be English.
6.5. "locationURI" Parameter
The "locationURI" element includes a single Location URI. Each
Location URI that is allocated by the LIS is unique to the device
that is requesting it.
A "locationResponse" message MAY contain any number of "locationURI"
elements. It is RECOMMENDED that the LIS allocate a Location URI for
each scheme that it supports and that each scheme is present only
once. URI schemes and their secure variants such as http and https
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
MUST be regarded as two separate schemes.
6.5.1. "expires" Parameter
The "expires" attribute indicates the time at which the Location URI
provided by the LIS will expire. This attribute is included in the
"locationResponse" message only.
Responses to Locations requests for Location URIs MUST include the
expiry time of the Location URI.
7. XML Schema
This section gives the XML Schema Definition [12] of the
"application/held+xml" format. This is presented as a formal
definition of the "application/held+xml" format. Note that the XML
Schema definition is not intended to be used with on-the-fly
validation of the presence XML document.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:held="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
xmlns:ca="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy"
xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:documentation source="https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt">
<!-- [[NOTE TO RFC-EDITOR: Please replace above URL with URL of
published RFC and remove this note.]] -->
This document defines HELD messages.
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
schemaLocation="xml.xsd"/>
<xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
schemaLocation="geopriv10.xsd"/>
<xs:import
namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
schemaLocation="civicAddress.xsd"/>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
<xs:import namespace="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
schemaLocation="GML-3.1.1/base/geometryBasic2d.xsd"/>
<!-- Return Location -->
<xs:complexType name="returnLocationType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="locationURI" type="xs:anyURI"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="expires" type="xs:dateTime"
use="required"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<!-- responseTime Type -->
<xs:simpleType name="responseTimeType">
<xs:union>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration value="emergencyRouting"/>
<xs:enumeration value="emergencyDispatch"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:decimal">
<xs:minInclusive value="0.0"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:union>
</xs:simpleType>
<!-- Location Type -->
<xs:simpleType name="locationTypeBase">
<xs:union>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration value="any"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:list>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration value="civic"/>
<xs:enumeration value="geodetic"/>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
<xs:enumeration value="locationURI"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:list>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:union>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:complexType name="locationTypeType">
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base="held:locationTypeBase">
<xs:attribute name="exact" type="xs:boolean"
use="optional" default="false"/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
<!-- Response code -->
<xs:simpleType name="codeType">
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration value="requestError"/>
<xs:enumeration value="xmlError"/>
<xs:enumeration value="generalLisError"/>
<xs:enumeration value="locationUnknown"/>
<xs:enumeration value="unsupportedMessage"/>
<xs:enumeration value="timeout"/>
<xs:enumeration value="cannotProvideLiType"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<!-- Message Definitions -->
<xs:complexType name="baseRequestType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence/>
<xs:attribute name="responseTime" type="held:responseTimeType"
use="optional"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="errorType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence/>
<xs:attribute name="code" type="held:codeType"
use="required"/>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
<xs:attribute name="message" type="xs:token"
use="optional"/>
<xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" use="optional"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="error" type="held:errorType"/>
<!-- Location Response -->
<xs:complexType name="locationResponseType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="locationUriSet"
type="held:returnLocationType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="locationResponse"
type="held:locationResponseType"/>
<xs:complexType name="locationRequestType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:extension base="held:baseRequestType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="locationType"
type="held:locationTypeType"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:extension>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="locationRequest"
type="held:locationRequestType"/>
</xs:schema>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
8. HTTP Binding
This section defines an HTTP [3] binding for this protocol, which all
conforming implementations MUST support. This binding takes the form
of a Web Service (WS) that can be described by the Web Services
Description Language (WSDL) document in Section 8.1.
The request is carried in this binding as the body of an HTTP POST
request. The MIME type of both request and response bodies should be
"application/held+xml".
The LIS populates the HTTP headers so that they are consistent with
the contents of the message. In particular, the "expires" and cache
control headers are used to control the caching of any PIDF-LO
document or Location URIs. The HTTP status code SHOULD indicate a
2xx series response when a PIDF-LO document or Location URI is
included.
This binding also includes a default behaviour, which is triggered by
a GET request, or a POST with no request body. If either of these
queries are received, the LIS MUST attempt to provide either a
PIDF-LO document or a Location URI, as if the request was a location
request.
This binding MUST use TLS as described in [4]. TLS provides message
integrity and privacy between Device and LIS. The LIS MUST use the
server authentication method described in [4]; the Device MUST fail a
request if server authentication fails, except in the event of an
emergency.
8.1. HTTP Binding WSDL
The following WSDL 2.0 [23] document describes the HTTP binding for
this protocol. Actual service instances MUST provide a "service"
with at least one "endpoint" that implements the "heldHTTP" binding.
A service description document MAY include this schema directly or by
using the "import" or "include" directives.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<wsdl:definitions
xmlns:wsdl="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl"
xmlns:whttp="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl/http"
xmlns:held="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
xmlns:pidf="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
xmlns:heldhttp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http"
type="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl/http">
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
<wsdl:documentation>
This document describes the basic HELD sighting web service.
Please refer to RFCXXXX for details.
[[NOTE TO RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number
for this specification and remove this note.]]
</wsdl:documentation>
<wsdl:types>
<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xsd:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
schemaLocation="held.xsd"/>
<xsd:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"/>
</xsd:schema>
</wsdl:types>
<wsdl:interface name="held">
<wsdl:operation name="locationRequest" method="POST">
<wsdl:input message="held:locationRequest"/>
<wsdl:output message="held:locationResponse"/>
<wsdl:fault message="held:error"/>
</wsdl:operation>
<wsdl:operation
name="getLocation" method="GET"
pattern="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/out-only">
<wsdl:output message="held:locationResponse"/>
<wsdl:fault message="held:error"/>
</wsdl:operation>
</wsdl:interface>
<wsdl:binding name="heldHTTP" whttp:defaultMethod="POST">
<wsdl:operation
whttp:inputSerialization="application/held+xml"
whttp:outputSerializatiom="application/held+xml"
whttp:faultSerialization="application/held+xml"
ref="heldhttp:locationRequest"/>
<wsdl:operation
whttp:inputSerialization="application/held+xml"
whttp:outputSerializatiom="application/held+xml"
whttp:faultSerialization="application/held+xml"
ref="heldhttp:getLocation" whttp:method="GET"/>
</wsdl:binding>
</wsdl:definitions>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
9. Security Considerations
The threat model for this protocol assumes that the LIS exists within
the same administrative domain as the Device. The LIS requires
access to network information so that it can determine Location.
Therefore, the LIS can use network information to protect against a
number of the possible attacks.
Specific requirements and security considerations for location
acquisition protocols are provided in [11] including that the LCP
MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication, which is
addressed in Section 9.2
An in-depth discussion of the security considerations applicable to
the use of Location URIs and by-reference provision of LI is included
in [16].
9.1. Return Routability
It is RECOMMENDED that Location Information Servers use return
routability rather than requiring Device authentication. Device
authentication SHOULD NOT be required due to the administrative
challenge of issuing and managing of client credentials, particularly
when networks allow visiting users to attach devices. However, the
LIS MAY require any form of authentication as long as these factors
are considered.
Addressing information used in a request to the LIS is used to
determine the identity of the Device, and to address a response.
This ensures that a Device can only request its own LI.
A temporary spoofing of IP address could mean that a device could
request a Location URI that would result in another Device's
location. One or more of the follow approaches are RECOMMENDED to
limit this exposure:
o Location URIs SHOULD have a limited lifetime, as reflected by the
value for the expires element (Section 6.5.1).
o The network SHOULD have mechanisms that protect against IP address
spoofing.
o The LIS SHOULD ensure that requests can only originate from within
its administrative domain.
o The LIS and network SHOULD be configured so that the LIS is made
aware of Device movement within the network and addressing
changes. If the LIS detects a change in the network, then all
location URIs MUST be invalidated.
The above measures are dependent on network configuration and SHOULD
be considered with circumstances in mind. For instance, in a fixed
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
internet access, providers may be able to restrict the allocation of
IP addresses to a single physical line, ensuring that spoofing is not
possible; in such an environment, other measures may not be
necessary.
9.2. Transaction Layer Security
All bindings for this protocol MUST ensure that messages are
adequately protected against eavesdropping and modification.
Bindings MUST also provide a means of authenticating the LIS.
It is RECOMMENDED that all bindings also use TLS [2].
For the HTTP binding, TLS MUST be used. TLS provides protection
against eavesdropping and modification. The server authentication
methods described in HTTP on TLS [4] MUST be used.
10. Examples
10.1. Simple HTTP Binding Example Messages
The examples in this section show a complete HTTP message that
includes the HELD request or response document.
This example shows the most basic request for a LO. This uses the
GET feature described by the HTTP binding. This example assumes that
the LIS service exists at the URL "https://lis.example.com/location".
GET /location HTTP/1.1
Host: lis.example.com
Accept:application/held+xml,
application/xml;q=0.8,
text/xml;q=0.7
Accept-Charset: UTF-8,*
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
The GET request is exactly identical to a minimal POST request that
includes an empty "locationRequest" element.
POST /location HTTP/1.1
Host: lis.example.com
Accept: application/held+xml,
application/xml;q=0.8,
text/xml;q=0.7
Accept-Charset: UTF-8,*
Content-Type: application/held+xml
Content-Length: 87
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"/>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
The successful response to either of these requests is a PIDF-LO
document. The following response shows a minimal PIDF-LO response.
HTTP/1.x 200 OK
Server: Example LIS
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT
Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:42:29 GMT
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: application/held+xml
Content-Length: 594
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<locationResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held">
<presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
entity="pres:3650n87934c@ls.example.com">
<tuple id="3b650sf789nd">
<status>
<geopriv xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10">
<location-info>
<Point xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<pos>-34.407 150.88001</pos>
</Point>
</location-info>
<usage-rules>
<retention-expiry>
2006-01-11T03:42:28+00:00</retention-expiry>
</usage-rules>
</geopriv>
</status>
<timestamp>2006-01-10T03:42:28+00:00</timestamp>
</tuple>
</presence>
</locationResponse>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
The error response to either of these requests is an error document.
The following response shows an example error response.
HTTP/1.x 200 OK
Server: Example LIS
Expires: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:49:20 GMT
Cache-control: private
Content-Type: application/held+xml
Content-Length: 135
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<error xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
code="locationUnknown"
message="Unable to determine location"/>
Note: To focus on important portions of messages, all examples
following this note do not show HTTP headers or the XML prologue.
In addition, sections of XML not relevant to the example are
replaced with comments.
10.2. Simple Location Request Example
The location request shown below doesn't specify any location types
or response time.
<locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"/>
The response to this location request is a list of Location URIs.
<locationResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held">
<locationUriSet expires="2006-01-01T13:00:00">
<locationURI>https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o
</locationURI>
<locationURI>sips:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com
</locationURI>
</locationUriSet>
</locationResponse>
An error response to this location request is shown below:
<error xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
code="locationUnknown"
message="Location not available"/>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
10.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types
The following Location Request message includes a request for
geodetic, civic and any Location URIs.
<locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held">
<locationType exact="true">
geodetic
civic
locationURI
</locationType>
</locationRequest>
The corresponding Location Response message includes the requested
location information, including two location URIs.
<locationResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held">
<locationUriSet expires="2006-01-01T13:00:00">
<locationURI>https://ls.example.com:9768/357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o
</locationURI>
<locationURI>sips:9769+357yc6s64ceyoiuy5ax3o@ls.example.com:
</locationURI>
</locationUriSet>
<presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
entity="pres:ae3be8585902e2253ce2@10.102.23.9">
<tuple id="lisLocation">
<status>
<geopriv>
<location-info>
<gs:Circle
xmlns:gs="http://www.opengis.net/pidflo/1.0"
xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
srsName="urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326">
<gml:pos>-34.407242 150.882518</gml:pos>
<gs:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001">30
</gs:radius>
</gs:Circle>
<ca:civicAddress
xmlns:ca="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
xml:lang="en-au">
<ca:country>AU</ca:country>
<ca:A1>NSW</ca:A1>
<ca:A3>Wollongong</ca:A3>
<ca:A4>Gwynneville</ca:A4>
<ca:STS>Northfield Avenue</ca:STS>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
<ca:LMK>University of Wollongong</ca:LMK>
<ca:FLR>2</ca:FLR>
<ca:NAM>Andrew Corporation</ca:NAM>
<ca:PC>2500</ca:PC>
<ca:BLD>39</ca:BLD>
<ca:SEAT>WS-183</ca:SEAT>
<ca:POBOX>U40</ca:POBOX>
</ca:civicAddress>
</location-info>
<usage-rules>
<retransmission-allowed>false</retransmission-allowed>
<retention-expiry>2007-05-25T12:35:02+10:00
</retention-expiry>
</usage-rules>
<method>Wiremap</method>
</geopriv>
</status>
<timestamp>2007-05-24T12:35:02+10:00</timestamp>
</tuple>
</presence>
</locationResponse>
10.4. Sample LIS WSDL Document
The following WSDL document demonstrates how a WSDL document can be
created for a specific service, in this case, a service at the URI
"https://lis.example.com/location".
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<wsdl:definitions
xmlns:wsdl="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/wsdl"
xmlns:heldhttp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http"
targetNamespace="http://lis.example.com/ws/held">
<wsdl:import
namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http"/>
<wsdl:service name="sample-held-svc" interface="heldhttp:held">
<wsdl:endpoint name="sample-held-ep"
binding="heldhttp:heldHTTP"
address="https://lis.example.com/location"/>
</wsdl:service>
</wsdl:definitions>
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
11. IANA Considerations
This document registers an XML namespace and schema and the
"application/held+xml" MIME type.
11.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held
This section registers a new XML namespace,
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held", as per the guidelines in [6].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held
Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
(geopriv@ietf.org), Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com).
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>HELD Messages</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for HELD Messages</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held</h2>
[[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
with the RFC number for this specification.]]
<p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
11.2. XML Schema Registration
This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in [6].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held
Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org),
Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com).
Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of
Section 7 of this document.
11.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http
This section registers a new XML namespace,
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http", as per the guidelines in
[6].
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http
Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
(geopriv@ietf.org), Mary Barnes (mary.barnes@nortel.com).
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>HELD HTTP Binding WS</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for HELD HTTP Binding WS</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:http</h2>
[[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
with the RFC number for this specification.]]
<p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
11.4. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml'
This section registers the "application/held+xml" MIME type.
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of MIME media type application/held+xml
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: held+xml
Required parameters: (none)
Optional parameters: charset
Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Default is
UTF-8.
Encoding considerations: Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit
characters, depending on the character encoding used. See RFC
3023 [19], section 3.2.
Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry
protocol data related to the location of an entity, which could
include information that is considered private. Appropriate
precautions should be taken to limit disclosure of this
information.
Interoperability considerations: This content type provides a basis
for a protocol
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
Published specification: RFC XXXX [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please
replace XXXX with the RFC number for this specification.]]
Applications which use this media type: Location information
providers and consumers.
Additional Information: Magic Number(s): (none)
File extension(s): .xml
Macintosh File Type Code(s): (none)
Person & email address to contact for further information: Mary
Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Author/Change controller: This specification is TBD
Other information: This media type is a specialization of
application/xml [19], and many of the considerations described
there also apply to application/held+xml.
12. Contributors
James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson and Barbara Stark are the authors
of the original document, from which this WG document was derived.
Their contact information is included in the Author's address
section. In addition, they also contributed to the WG document, in
particular the schema and WSDL.
13. Acknowledgements
The author/contributors would like to thank the following people for
their constructive input to this document (in alphabetical order):
Nadine Abbott, Eric Arolick, Guy Caron, Martin Dawson, Jerome
Grenier, Neil Justusson, Tat Lam, Patti McCalmont, Perry Prozeniuk,
Carl Reed, John Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, Henning Schulzrinne, Ed
Shrum, and Hannes Tschofenig.
14. Changes since last Version
NOTE TO THE RFC-Editor: Please remove this section prior to
publication as an RFC.
Changes from WG 01 to 02:
1) Updated Terminology to be consistent with WG agreements and other
documents (e.g., LCS -> LIS and removed duplicate terms). In the
end, there are no new terms defined in this document.
2) Modified definition of responseTime to reflect WG consensus.
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
3) Removed jurisdictionalCivic and postalCivic locationTypes (leaving
just "civic").
4) Clarified text that locationType is optional. Fixed table 1 and
text in section 5.2 (locationRequest description). Text in section
6.2 (description of locationType element) already defined the default
to be "any".
5) Simplified error responses. Separated the definition of error
response type from the locationResponse type thus no need for
defining an error code of "success". This simplifies the schema and
processing.
6) Updated schema/examples for the above.
7) Updated Appendix A based on updates to requirements document,
specifically changes to A.1, A.3 and adding A.10.
8) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications.
Changes from WG 00 to 01:
1) heldResponse renamed to locationResponse.
2) Changed namespace references for the PIDF-LO geoShape in the
schema to match the agreed GML PIDF-LO Geometry Shape Application
Schema.
3) Removed "options" element - leaving optionality/extensibility to
XML mechanisms.
4) Changed error codes to be enumerations and not redefinitions of
HTTP response codes.
5) Updated schema/examples for the above and removed some remnants of
the context element.
6) Clarified the definition of "Location Information (LI)" to include
a reference to the location (to match the XML schema and provide
consistency of usage throughout the document). Added an additional
statement in section 7.2 (locationType) to clarify that LCS MAY also
return a Location URI.
7) Modifed the definition of "Location Configuration Server (LCS)" to
be consistent with the current definiton in the requirements
document.
8) Updated Location Response (section 6.3) to remove reference to
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
context and discuss the used of a local identifier or unlinked
pseudonym in providing privacy/security.
9) Clarified that the source IP address in the request is used as the
identifier for the target/device for the HELD protocol as defined in
this document.
10) Miscellaneous editorial clarifications.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
[3] 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.
[4] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[5] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275,
March 2002.
[6] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[7] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[8] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[9] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location Format
for PIDF-LO", draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05 (work in
progress), February 2007.
[10] Tschofenig, H., "GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification,
Considerations and Recommendations",
draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-08 (work in progress),
July 2007.
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
[11] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location
Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and Requirements",
draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-05 (work in progress),
September 2007.
[12] Thompson, H., Mendelsohn, N., Maloney, M., and D. Beech, "XML
Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide Web
Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.
[13] Malhotra, A. and P. Biron, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second
Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028>.
[14] Cox, S., Daisey, P., Lake, R., Portele, C., and A. Whiteside,
"Geographic information - Geography Markup Language (GML)",
OpenGIS 03-105r1, April 2004,
<http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=4700>.
[15] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local
Location Information Server (LIS)",
draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-03 (work in progress),
September 2007.
[16] Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
Mechanism", draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-00 (work in
progress), September 2007.
15.2. Informative References
[17] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
September 1981.
[18] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence
and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.
[19] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
RFC 3023, January 2001.
[20] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[21] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
[22] Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the Session
Initiation Protocol", draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-08
(work in progress), July 2007.
[23] Chinnici, R., Moreau, J., Ryman, A., and S. Weerawarana, "Web
Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1: Core
Language", W3C CR CR-wsdl20-20060106, January 2006.
Appendix A. HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements
This appendix describes HELD's compliance to the requirements
specified in the [11].
A.1. L7-1: Identifier Choice
"The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST
define an identifier that is mandatory to implement. Regarding the
latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is from
the same realm as the one for which the location information service
maintains identifier to location mapping."
COMPLY
HELD uses the IP address of the location request message as the
primary source of identity for the requesting device or target. This
identity can be used with other contextual network information to
provide a physical location for the Target for many network
deployments. There may be network deployments where an IP address
alone is insufficient to identify a Target in a network. However,
any necessary identity extensions for these networks is beyond the
scope of this document.
A.2. L7-2: Mobility Support
"The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST support a
broad range of mobility from devices that can only move between
reboots, to devices that can change attachment points with the impact
that their IP address is changed, to devices that do not change their
IP address while roaming, to devices that continuously move by being
attached to the same network attachment point."
COMPLY
Mobility support is inherently a characteristic of the access network
technology and HELD is designed to be access network agnostic.
Consequently HELD complies with this requirement. In addition HELD
provides specific support for mobile environments by providing an
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
optional responseTime attribute in location request messages.
Wireless networks often have several different mechanisms at their
disposal for position determination (e.g. Assisted GPS versus
location based on serving base station identity), each providing
different degrees of accuracy and taking different amounts of time to
yield a result. The responseTime parameter provides the LIS with a
criterion which it can use to select a location determination
technique.
A.3. L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship
"The design of the L7 LCP MUST NOT assume a business or trust
relationship between the Application Service Provider (ASP) and the
Access Network Provider. Requirements for resolving a reference to
location information are not discussed in this document."
COMPLY
HELD describes a location acquisition protocol and has no
dependencies on the business or trust relationship between the ASP
and the Access Network Provider. Location acquisition using HELD is
subject to the restrictions described in Section 9.
A.4. L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship
"The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST assume that there is a trust and business relationship between
the L2 and the L3 provider. The L3 provider operates the LIS and
needs to obtain location information from the L2 provider since this
one is closest to the end host. If the L2 and L3 provider for the
same host are different entities, they cooperate for the purposes
needed to determine end system locations."
COMPLY
HELD was specifically designed with this model in mind and readily
allows itself to chaining requests between operators without a change
in protocol being required. HELD is a webservices protocol it can be
bound to transports other than HTTP. Using o offers the option of
high request throughput over a dedicated connection between an L3
provider and an L2 provider without incurring the serial restriction
imposed by HTTP. This is less easy to do with protocols that do not
decouple themselves from the transport.
A.5. L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations
"The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST consider legacy residential NAT devices and NTEs in an DSL
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
environment that cannot be upgraded to support additional protocols,
for example to pass additional information through DHCP."
COMPLY
HELD is an application protocol and operates on top of IP. A HELD
request from a host behind a residential NAT will traverse the NAT
acquiring the external address of the home router. The location
provided to the host therefore will be the address of the home router
in this circumstance. No changes are required to the home router in
order to support this function, HELD was designed specifically to
address this deployment scenario.
A.6. L7-6: VPN Awareness
"The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST assume that at least one end of a VPN is aware of the VPN
functionality. In an enterprise scenario, the enterprise side will
provide the LIS used by the client and can thereby detect whether the
LIS request was initiated through a VPN tunnel."
COMPLY
HELD does not preclude a LIS on the far end of a VPN tunnel being
aware that the client request is occurring over that tunnel. It also
does not preclude a client device from accessing a LIS serving the
local physical network and subsequently using the location
information with an application that is accessed over a VPN tunnel.
A.7. L7-7: Network Access Authentication
"The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication."
COMPLY
HELD makes no assumptions about prior network access authentication.
HELD strongly recommends the use of TLS with server-side certificates
for communication between the end-point and the LIS. There is no
requirement for the end-point to authenticate with the LIS.
A.8. L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness
"The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST NOT assume end systems being aware of the access network
topology. End systems are, however, able to determine their public
IP address(es) via mechanisms such as STUN or NSIS NATFW NSLP."
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
COMPLY
HELD makes no assumption about the network topology. HELD doesn't
require that the device know its external IP address, except where
that is required for discovery of the LIS.
A.9. L7-9: Discovery Mechanism
"The L7 LCP MUST define a single mandatory to implement discovery
mechanism."
COMPLY
HELD uses the discovery mechanism in [15].
A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation
"When a LIS creates a PIDF-LO per RFC 4119 then it MUST put the
<geopriv> element into the <device> element of the presence document
(see RFC 4479). This ensures that the resulting PIDF-LO document,
which is subsequently distributed to other entities, conforms to the
rules outlined in ". [10]
COMPLY
HELD protocol overview (Section 4 ) describes the requirements on the
LIS in creating the PIDF-LO and prescribes that the PIDF-LO generated
by the LIS MUST conform to [10].
Authors' Addresses
Mary Barnes (editor)
Nortel
2201 Lakeside Blvd
Richardson, TX
Email: mary.barnes@nortel.com
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
James Winterbottom
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2938
Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
Martin Thomson
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2915
Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
Barbara Stark
BellSouth
Room 7A41
725 W Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30308
US
Email: barbara.stark@bellsouth.com
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft HELD September 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Barnes, et al. Expires March 30, 2008 [Page 36]
