GEOPRIV WG                                                M. Barnes, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    Nortel
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 19, 2008

                                                          April 17, 2008

                 HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2008.


   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 in two forms: by value and by reference.  The
   protocol is an extensible application-layer protocol that is
   independent of session-layer.  This document describes the use of
   Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) as a transport for the protocol.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Conventions & Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Overview and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Location by Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Location by Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Device Identifiers, NAT and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.3.1.  Devices and VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.3.2.  LIS Handling of NATs and VPNs  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Delivery Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Location Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Location Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.4.  Indicating Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Protocol Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  "responseTime" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.2.  "locationType" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.2.1.  "exact" Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.3.  "code" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.4.  "message" Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.5.  "locationUriSet" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.5.1.  "locationURI" Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.5.2.  "expires" Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.6.  "Presence" Parameter (PIDF-LO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  HELDS: URI Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  HTTP Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     10.1. Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted  . . . . . 21
     10.2. Protecting responses from modification . . . . . . . . . . 21
     10.3. Privacy and Confidentiality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   11. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.1. HTTP Example Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.2. Simple Location Request Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.3. Location Request Example for Multiple Location Types . . . 26
   12. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     12.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
           urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held  . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     12.2. XML Schema Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     12.3. MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml'  . 28
     12.4. Error code Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     12.5. URI Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   15. Changes since last Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Appendix A.  HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements  . . . . . . 37
     A.1.  L7-1: Identifier Choice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     A.2.  L7-2: Mobility Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     A.3.  L7-3: ASP and Access Network Provider Relationship . . . . 38
     A.4.  L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship  . . . . . 39
     A.5.  L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
     A.6.  L7-6: VPN Awareness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     A.7.  L7-7: Network Access Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     A.8.  L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     A.9.  L7-9: Discovery Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     A.10. L7-10: PIDF-LO Creation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 43

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

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
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] provides some scenarios in which the
   Device might rely on its access network to provide location
   information.  The LIS service applies to access networks employing
   both wired technology (e.g.  DSL, Cable) and wireless technology
   (e.g.  WiMAX) with varying degrees of Device mobility.  This document
   describes a protocol that can be used to acquire Location Information
   (LI) from a Location Information Server (LIS) within an access

   This specification identifies two types of location information that
   may be retrieved from the LIS.  Location may be retrieved from the
   LIS by value, that is, the Device may acquire a literal location
   object describing the location of the Device.  The Device may also
   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 can be
   provided concurrently from the same LIS to accommodate application
   requirements for different types of location information.

   This specification defines an extensible 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.  This document describes the use of
   Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) as a transport for the protocol.

2.  Conventions & Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   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 [RFC3693] .  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
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].  The usage of the terms, Civic
   Location/Address and Geodetic Location follows the usage in many of
   the referenced documents.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   In describing the protocol, the terms "attribute" and "element" are
   used according to their context in XML.  The term "parameter" is used
   in a more general protocol context and can refer to either an XML
   "attribute" or "element".

3.  Overview and Scope

   This document describes an interface between a Device and a Location
   Information Server (LIS).  This document assumes that the LIS is
   present within the same administrative domain as the Device (e.g.,
   the access network).  An Access Provider (AP) operates the LIS so
   that Devices (and Targets) can retrieve their 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

   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.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   The following diagram shows the logical configuration of some of the
   functional elements identified in [RFC3693] and the LIS defined in
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and where this protocol applies, with
   the Rule Maker and Target represented by the role of the Device.
   Note that only the interfaces relevant to the Device are identified
   in the diagram.

                     | Access Network Provider                     |
                     |                                             |
                     |   +--------------------------------------+  |
                     |   | Location Information Server          |  |
                     |   |                                      |  |
                     |   |                                      |  |
                     |   |                                      |  |
                     |   |                                      |  |
                     |   +------|-------------------------------+  |
     Rule Maker   - _     +-----------+         +-----------+
           o          - - | Device    |         | Location  |
          <U\             |           | - - - - | Recipient |
          / \       _ - - |           |   APP   |           |
         Target - -       +-----------+         +-----------+

                        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

4.  Protocol Overview

   A device uses the HELD protocol to retrieve its location either
   directly in the form of a PIDF-LO document (by value) and indirectly
   as a Location URI (by reference).  The security necessary to ensure
   the accuracy, privacy and confidentiality of the device's location is
   described in the Security Considerations (Section 10).

   As described in the L7 LCP problem statement and requirements

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps], the Device must first discover the URI
   for the LIS for sending the HELD protocol requests.  The discovery
   methods are specified in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery].

   The LIS requires an identifier for the Device in order to determine
   the appropriate location to include in the location response message.
   In this document, the IP address of the Device, as reflected by the
   source IP address in the location request message, is used as the
   identifier.  Other identifiers are possible, but are beyond the scope
   of this document.

4.1.  Location by Value

   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.  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 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile].  Further detail is
   included in the detailed protocol section of this document Section 6

4.2.  Location by Reference

   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 [RFC3986] 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, anyone in possession of the URI can access the LIS.  However,
   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

4.3.  Device Identifiers, NAT and VPNs

   Use of the HELD protocol is subject to the viability of the
   identifier used by the LIS to determine location.  This document
   describes the use of the source IP address sent from the Device as
   the identifier used by the LIS.  When Network Address Translation
   (NAT), a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or other forms of address
   modification occur between the Device and the LIS the location
   returned could be inaccurate.

   Not all cases of NATs introduce inaccuracies in the returned

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   location.  For example, a NAT used in a residential Local Area
   Network (LAN) is typically not a problem.  The external IP address
   used on the Wide Area Network (WAN) side of the NAT is an acceptable
   identifier for all of the devices in the residence, on the LAN side
   of the NAT, since the covered geographical area is small.

   On the other hand, if there is a VPN between the Device and the LIS,
   for example for a teleworker, then the IP address seen by a LIS
   inside the enterprise network might not be the right address to
   identify the location of the Device.  Section 4.3.2 provides
   recommendations to address this issue.

4.3.1.  Devices and VPNs

   To minimize the impact of VPNs, Devices should perform their HELD
   query prior to establishing a VPN tunnel.  It is RECOMMENDED that
   discovery [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] and an initial query are
   performed before establishing the VPN.  If a Device performs the HELD
   query after establishing the VPN tunnel the Device may receive
   inaccurate location information.

   Devices that establish VPN connections for use by other devices
   inside a LAN or other closed network could serve as a LIS, that
   implements the HELD protocol, for those other Devices.  Devices
   within the closed network are not necessarily able to detect the
   presence of the VPN and rely on the VPN device.  To this end, a VPN
   device should provide the address of the LIS server it provides, in
   response to discovery queries, rather than passing such queries
   through the VPN tunnel.

4.3.2.  LIS Handling of NATs and VPNs

   In the cases where the Device connects to the LIS through a VPN or a
   NAT that serves a large geographic area or multiple geographic
   locations (for example, a NAT used by an enterprise to connect their
   private network to the Internet), the LIS might not be able to return
   an accurate LI.  If the LIS cannot determine an accurate LI, it
   should not provide location information to the requesting device.
   The LIS needs to be configured to recognize identifiers that
   represent these conditions.

   LIS operators have a large role in ensuring the best possible
   environment for location determination.  The LIS operator needs to
   ensure that the LIS is properly configured with identifiers that fall
   within NATs and VPNs.  In order to serve a Device on a remote side of
   a NAT or VPN a LIS needs to have a presence on the side of the NAT or
   VPN nearest the Device.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

5.  Protocol Description

   As discussed in Section 4, this protocol provides for the retrieval
   of the device's location in the form of a PIDF-LO document and/or
   Location URI(s) 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 location in the form of a PIDF-LO document (with specific
   type(s) of location) and/or Location URI(s) should be returned.  The
   LIS replies with a locationResponse message, including a PIDF-LO
   document and/or one or more Location URIs in case of success.  In the
   case of an error, the LIS replies with an error message.

   A MIME type "application/held+xml" is registered in Section 12.3 to
   distinguish HELD messages from other XML document bodies.  This
   specification follows the recommendations and conventions described
   in [RFC3023], 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 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028].

5.1.  Delivery Protocol

   The HELD protocol is an application-layer protocol specified by an
   XML document.  The HELD protocol is defined independently of any
   lower layers used to transport messages from one host to another.
   This means that any protocol can be used to transport this protocol
   providing that it can provide a few basic features:

   o  The HELD protocol doesn't provide any mechanisms that enable
      detection of missing messages and retransmission, thus the
      protocol must have acknowledged delivery.
   o  The HELD protocol is a request, response protocol, thus the
      protocol must be able to correlate a response with a request.
   o  The HELD protocol must provide authentication, confidentiality and
      protection against modification per Section 10.3.

   This document describes the use of a combination of HTTP [RFC2616],
   TLS [RFC4346] and TCP [RFC0793] in Section 9.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

5.2.  Location Request

   A location request message is sent from the Device to the LIS when
   the Device requires its own 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 LIS MUST ignore any part of a location request message that it
   does not understand.

5.3.  Location Response

   A successful response to a location request MUST contain a PIDF-LO
   and/or location URI(s).  The response SHOULD contain location
   information of the requested "locationType".  The cases whereby a
   different type of location information MAY be returned are described
   in Section 6.2.

5.4.  Indicating Errors

   If the LIS is unable to provide location information based on the
   received locationRequest message, it MUST return an error message.
   The LIS may return an error message in response to requests for any

   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
   this protocol.  Table 1 lists the top-level components used within
   the protocol and where they are mandatory or optional for each of the

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   | Parameter      |    Location    |    Location    |      Error     |
   |                |     Request    |    Response    |                |
   | responseTime   |        o       |                |                |
   | (Section 6.1)  |                |                |                |
   | locationType   |        o       |                |                |
   | (Section 6.2)  |                |                |                |
   | code           |                |                |        m       |
   | (Section 6.3)  |                |                |                |
   | message        |                |                |        o       |
   | (Section 6.4)  |                |                |                |
   | locationUriSet |                |        o       |                |
   | (Section 6.5)  |                |                |                |
   | Presence       |                |        o       |                |
   | (PIDF-LO)      |                |                |                |
   | (Section 6.6)  |                |                |                |

                     Table 1: Message Parameter Usage

6.1.  "responseTime" Parameter

   The "responseTime" attribute MAY be included in a location request
   message.  The "responseTime" attribute includes a time value
   indicating to the LIS how long the Device is prepared to wait for a
   response or a 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 values defined for the purpose, "emergencyRouting" and
   "emergencyDispatch", will likely be governed by jurisdictional
   policies, and should be configurable on the LIS.

   The time value in the "responseTime" attribute is expressed as a non-
   negative integer in units of milliseconds.  The time value 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 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 time in the "responseTime" attribute
   as input when selecting the method of location determination, where
   multiple such methods exist.  If the "responseTime" attribute is
   absent, then the LIS should return the most precise LI it is capable
   of determining, with the time interval being implementation

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008


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.  The LIS SHOULD return location information in a form that is
      suited for routing and responding to an emergency call in its
      jurisdiction, specifically by value.  The LIS MAY alternatively or
      additionally return a location URI.  If the LIS believes that the
      Device is mobile, that is, its location may change over relatively
      short periods of time (i.e., several minutes), it SHOULD return a
      location URI.  If the "locationType" element is absent, this value
      MUST be assumed as the default.
   geodetic:  The LIS SHOULD return a geodetic location for the Target.
   civic:  The LIS SHOULD return a civic address for the Target.
   locationURI:  The LIS SHOULD return a set of location URIs for the

   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.  A location URI provided by the LIS is a reference to the most
   current available LI and is not a stable reference to a specific
   location.  The location types the LIS returns also depend on the
   setting of the optional "exact" attribute, as described in the
   following section.  The LIS SHOULD provide the locations in the
   response in the same order in which they were included in the
   "locationType" element in the request.

   The "SHOULD"-strength requirements on this parameter are 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.  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

6.2.1.  "exact" Attribute

   The "exact" attribute MAY be included in a location request message
   when the "locationType" element is included.  When the "exact"
   attribute is set to "true", it indicates to the LIS that the contents

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   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 set of location URIs
   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
   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.

   The value of the response code MUST be one of the following tokens:

   requestError:  This code indicates that the request was badly formed
      in some fashion (other than the XML content).
   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 an element in the XML
      document for the request, was not supported or understood by the
   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

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.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

6.5.  "locationUriSet" Parameter

   The "locationUriSet" element, received in 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.  The helds:
   URI scheme as defined in Section 8 is one possible scheme for the
   "locationURI" element.  URI schemes and their secure variants, such
   as http and https, MUST be regarded as two separate schemes.

   If a "locationUriSet" element is received in a "locationResponse"
   message, it MUST contain an "expires" attribute, which defines the
   length of time for which the set of "locationURI" elements are valid.

6.5.1.  "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 "locationURI" SHOULD NOT contain any information that could be used
   to identify the Device or Target.  Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that the
   "locationURI" element contain a public address for the LIS and an
   anonymous identifier, such as a local identifier or unlinked
   pseudonym.  Further guidelines to ensure the the privacy and
   confidentiality of the information contained in the
   "locationResponse" message, including the "locationURI", are included
   in Section 10.3.

6.5.2.  "expires" Parameter

   The "expires" attribute is only included in a "locationResponse"
   message when a "locationUriSet" element is included.  The "expires"
   attribute indicates the date/time at which the Location URIs provided
   by the LIS will expire.  The "expires" attribute does not define the
   length of time a location received by dereferencing the location URI
   will be valid.

   Location responses that contain a "locationUriSet" element MUST
   include the expiry time in the "expires" attribute.  If a Device
   dereferences a location URI after the expiry time, the dereference
   SHOULD fail.

6.6.  "Presence" Parameter (PIDF-LO)

   A "presence" parameter may be included in the "locationResponse"
   message when specific locationTypes (e.g., "geodetic" or "civic") are
   requested or a "locationType" of "any" is requested.  The LIS MUST

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   follow the subset of the rules relating to the construction of the
   "location-info" element in the PIDF-LO Usage Clarification,
   Considerations and Recommendations document
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile] in generating the PIDF-LO for the
   presence parameter.

   Note that the presence parameter is not explicitly shown in the XML
   schema Section 7 for a location response message due to XML schema

7.  XML Schema

   This section gives the XML Schema Definition
   [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028], [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 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"?>

        This document (RFC xxxx) defines HELD messages.
        <!-- [[NOTE TO RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX
              with the RFC number for this specification.]] -->

    <xs:import namespace=""

    <!-- Return Location -->
    <xs:complexType name="returnLocationType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
            <xs:element name="locationURI" type="xs:anyURI"

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

          <xs:attribute name="expires" type="xs:dateTime"

    <!-- responseTime Type -->
    <xs:simpleType name="responseTimeType">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
            <xs:enumeration value="emergencyRouting"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="emergencyDispatch"/>
          <xs:restriction base="xs:nonNegativeInteger">
            <xs:minInclusive value="0"/>

    <!-- Location Type -->
    <xs:simpleType name="locationTypeBase">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
            <xs:enumeration value="any"/>

              <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
                <xs:enumeration value="civic"/>
                <xs:enumeration value="geodetic"/>
                <xs:enumeration value="locationURI"/>

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

    <xs:complexType name="locationTypeType">
        <xs:extension base="held:locationTypeBase">
          <xs:attribute name="exact" type="xs:boolean"
                        use="optional" default="false"/>

    <!-- Message Definitions -->
    <xs:complexType name="baseRequestType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
          <xs:attribute name="responseTime" type="held:responseTimeType"
          <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>

    <xs:complexType name="errorType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
          <xs:attribute name="code" type="xs:token"
          <xs:attribute name="message" type="xs:string"
          <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" use="optional"/>

    <xs:element name="error" type="held:errorType"/>

    <!-- Location Response -->
    <xs:complexType name="locationResponseType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
            <xs:element name="locationUriSet"
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008


    <xs:element name="locationResponse"

    <!-- Location Request -->

    <xs:complexType name="locationRequestType">
        <xs:extension base="held:baseRequestType">
            <xs:element name="locationType"
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

    <xs:element name="locationRequest"


8.  HELDS: URI Definition

   This section defines the schema for a helds: URI.  This URI schema is
   one possible URI scheme for the "locationURI" element, described in
   Section 6.5.1, in a HELD "locationResponse " message.  In this case,
   the helds: URI indicates to the Device where to obtain the actual
   location information for a Target.  In addition, the helds: URI can
   be the result of the LIS discovery process
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] and indicates to the Device the LIS
   from which LI should be requested.

   The helds: URI is defined using a subset of the URI schema specified
   in Appendix A.  of RFC3986 [RFC3986] and the associated URI
   Guidelines [RFC4395] per the following ABNF syntax:

 HELD-URI = "helds://" host [ ":" port ] [ path-absolute ] [ "?" query ]

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   The following summarizes the primary elements comprising the HELD-

   host:  As defined in RFC3986 [RFC3986]
   port:  As defined in RFC3986 [RFC3986].  There is no unique port
      associated with location URIs.
   path-absolute  As defined in RFC3986 [RFC3986].
   query:  As defined in RFC3986 [RFC3986].  This allows for additional
      information associated with the URIs such as a unique anonymous
      identifier for the Device associated with the target location.

   The helds: URI is not intended to be human-readable text, therefore
   it is encoded entirely in US-ASCII.  The following are examples of
   helds: URIs:


   Other than the "host" portion, URIs are case sensitive and exact
   equivalency is required for HELD-URI comparisons.  For example, in
   the above examples, although similar in information, the 2nd and 3rd
   URIs are not considered equivalent.

   In the case where the helds: URI is contained in a "locationURI"
   element in a HELD locationResponse message, it is important to note
   that the URI is only valid for the length of time indicated by the
   "expires" attribute.

9.  HTTP Binding

   This section describes the use of HTTP [RFC2616] as a transport
   mechanism for this protocol, which all conforming implementations
   MUST support.

   The request is carried in the body of an HTTP POST request.  The MIME
   type of both request and response bodies should be
   "application/held+xml".  This should be reflected in the HTTP
   Content-Type and Accept header fields.

   The LIS populates the HTTP headers so that they are consistent with
   the contents of the message.  In particular, the cache control header
   SHOULD be set to disable the HTTP caching of any PIDF-LO document or
   Location URIs.  Otherwise, there is the risk of stale locations

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   and/or the unauthorized disclosure of the LI.  This also allows the
   LIS to control any caching with the "expires" parameter.  The HTTP
   status code MUST indicate a 2xx series response for all HELD
   locationResponse and error messages.

   The use of HTTP 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

   The implementation of HTTP as a transport mechanism MUST implement
   TLS as described in [RFC2818].  TLS provides message integrity and
   privacy between Device and LIS.  The LIS MUST use the server
   authentication method described in [RFC2818]; the Device MUST fail a
   request if server authentication fails, except in the event of an

10.  Security Considerations

   HELD is a location acquisition protocol whereby the a client requests
   its location from a LIS.  Specific requirements and security
   considerations for location acquisition protocols are provided in
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].  An in-depth discussion of the security
   considerations applicable to the use of Location URIs and by
   reference provision of LI is included in

   By using the HELD protocol, the client and the LIS expose themselves
   to two types of risk:

   Accuracy:  Client receives incorrect location information
   Privacy:  An unauthorized entity receives location information

   The provision of an accurate and privacy/confidentiality protected
   location to the requestor depends on the success of five steps:

      1.  The client must determine the proper LIS.
      2.  The client must connect to the proper LIS.
      3.  The LIS must be able to identify the device by its identifier
      (IP Address).
      4.  The LIS must be able to return the desired location.
      5.  HELD messages must be transmitted unmodified between the LIS
      and the client.

   Of these, only the second, third and the fifth are within the scope
   of this document.  The first step is based on either manual

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   configuration or on the LIS discovery defined in
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery], in which appropriate security
   considerations are already discussed.  The fourth step is dependent
   on the specific positioning capabilities of the LIS, and is thus
   outside the scope of this document.

10.1.  Assuring that the proper LIS has been contacted

   This document assumes that the LIS to be contacted is identified
   either by an IP address or a domain name, as is the case for a LIS
   discovered as described in LIS Discovery
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery].  When the HELD transaction is
   conducted using TLS [RFC4346], the LIS can authenticate its identity,
   either as a domain name or as an IP address, to the client by
   presenting a certificate containing that identifier as a
   subjectAltName (i.e., as an iPAddress or dNSName, respectively).  In
   the case of the HTTP binding described above, this is exactly the
   authentication described by TLS [RFC2818].  Any binding of HELD MUST
   be capable of being transacted over TLS so that the client can
   request the above authentication, and a LIS implementation for a
   binding MUST include this feature.  Note that in order for the
   presented certificate to be valid at the client, the client must be
   able to validate the certificate.  In particular, the validation path
   of the certificate must end in one of the client's trust anchors,
   even if that trust anchor is the LIS certificate itself.

10.2.  Protecting responses from modification

   In order to prevent that response from being modified en route,
   messages must be transmitted over an integrity-protected channel.
   When the transaction is being conducted over TLS (a required feature
   per Section 10.1), the channel will be integrity protected by
   appropriate ciphersuites.  When TLS is not used, this protection will
   vary depending on the binding; in most cases, without protection from
   TLS, the response will not be protected from modification en route.

10.3.  Privacy and Confidentiality

   Location information returned by the LIS must be protected from
   access by unauthorized parties, whether those parties request the
   location from the LIS or intercept it en route.  As in section
   Section 10.2, transactions conducted over TLS with appropriate
   ciphersuites are protected from access by unauthorized parties en
   route.  Conversely, in most cases, when not conducted over TLS, the
   response will be accessible while en route from the LIS to the

   Because HELD is an LCP and identifies clients and targets by IP

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   addresses, a requestor is authorized to access location for an IP
   address only if it is the holder of that IP address.  The LIS MUST
   verify that the client is the target of the returned location, i.e.,
   the LIS MUST NOT provide location to other entities than the target.
   Note that this is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for
   authorization.  A LIS MAY deny requests according to any local

   A prerequisite for meeting this requirement is that the LIS must have
   some assurance of the identity of the client.  Since the target of
   the returned location is identified by an IP address, simply sending
   the response to this IP address will provide sufficient assurance in
   many cases.  This is the default mechanism in HELD for assuring that
   location is given only to authorized clients; LIS implementations
   MUST support a mode of operation in which this is the only client

   Using IP return routability as an authenticator means that location
   information is vulnerable to exposure through IP address spoofing
   attacks.  A temporary spoofing of IP address could mean that a device
   could request a Location Object or Location URI that would result in
   another Device's location.  In addition, in cases where a Device
   drops off the network for various reasons, the re-use of the Device's
   IP address could result in another Device receiving the original
   Device's location rather than its own location.  One or more of the
   following approaches are RECOMMENDED to limit these exposures:

   o  Location URIs SHOULD have a limited lifetime, as reflected by the
      value for the expires element in Section 6.5.2.
   o  The network SHOULD have mechanisms that protect against IP address
      spoofing, such as those defined in [RFC3704].
   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 that results
      in it no longer being able to determine the location of the
      Device, then all location URIs for that Device SHOULD be

   The above measures are dependent on network configuration, which
   SHOULD be considered.  For instance, in a fixed 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.

   When there are further mechanisms available to authenticate ownership
   of the IP address, the LIS SHOULD use them to authenticate that the
   client is the owner of the target IP address.  For example, in a TLS
   transaction, the client could present a certificate with a public key

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   bound to an IPv6 Cryptographically Generated Address, and the LIS
   could verify this binding.

11.  Examples

   The following sections provide basic HTTP examples, a simple location
   request example and a location request for multiple location types
   example along with the relevant location responses.  To focus on
   important portions of messages, the examples in Section 11.2 and
   Section 11.3 do not show HTTP headers or the XML prologue.  In
   addition, sections of XML not relevant to the example are replaced
   with comments.

11.1.   HTTP 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 "".

         GET /location HTTP/1.1
         Accept-Charset: UTF-8,*

   The GET request is exactly identical to a minimal POST request that
   includes an empty "locationRequest" element.

         POST /location HTTP/1.1
         Accept: application/held+xml,
         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 October 19, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   Since neither of these requests includes a "locationType" element,
   the successful response to either of these requests may contain any
   type of location.  The following shows a response containing a
   minimal PIDF-LO.

         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"
           <tuple id="b650sf789nd">
            <geopriv xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10">
                <Point xmlns=""
                  <pos>-34.407 150.88001</pos>

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   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"
                message="Unable to determine location"/>

11.2.  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 example response to this location request contains a list of
   Location URIs.

      <locationResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held">
        <locationUriSet expires="2006-01-01T13:00:00">

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   An error response to this location request is shown below:

         <error xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
                    message="Location not available"/>

11.3.  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">

   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">
         <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
         <tuple id="lisLocation">
              <gml:pos>-34.407242 150.882518</gml:pos>
              <gs:radius uom="urn:ogc:def:uom:EPSG::9001">30

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

              <ca:STS>Northfield Avenue</ca:STS>
              <ca:LMK>University of Wollongong</ca:LMK>
              <ca:NAM>Andrew Corporation</ca:NAM>

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires several IANA registrations detailed in the
   following sections.

12.1.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration for

   This section registers a new XML namespace,
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held", per the guidelines in

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

      Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
      (, Mary Barnes (

           <?xml version="1.0"?>
           <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
           <html xmlns="" xml:lang="en">
               <title>HELD Messages</title>
               <h1>Namespace for HELD Messages</h1>
       [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX
       with the RFC number for this specification.]
               <p>See RFCXXXX</p>

12.2.  XML Schema Registration

   This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held
   Registrant Contact:  IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (,
      Mary Barnes (
   Schema:  The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of
      Section 7 of this document.

12.3.  MIME Media Type Registration for 'application/held+xml'

   This section registers the "application/held+xml" MIME type.

   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

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   Encoding considerations:  Uses XML, which can employ 8-bit
      characters, depending on the character encoding used.  See RFC
      3023 [RFC3023], section 3.2.
   Security considerations:  This content type is designed to carry
      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
   Interoperability considerations:  This content type provides a basis
      for a protocol
   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 <>
   Intended usage:  LIMITED USE
   Author/Change controller:  The IETF
   Other information:  This media type is a specialization of
      application/xml [RFC3023], and many of the considerations
      described there also apply to application/held+xml.

12.4.  Error code Registry

   This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for the
   HELD protocol including an initial registry for error codes.  The
   error codes are included in HELD error messages as described in
   Section 6.3 and defined in the schema in the 'codeType' token in the
   XML schema in (Section 7)

   The following summarizes the requested registry:

   Related Registry:   Geopriv HELD Registries, Error codes for HELD
   Defining RFC:  RFC XXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX
      with the RFC number for this specification.]
   Registration/Assignment Procedures:  Following the policies outlined
      in [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis], the IANA policy
      for assigning new values for the Error codes for HELD shall be
      Specification Required: values and their meanings must be
      documented in an RFC or in some other permanent and readily
      available reference, in sufficient detail that interoperability
      between independent implementations is possible.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   Registrant Contact:  IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (,
      Mary Barnes (

   This section pre-registers the following seven initial error codes as
   described above in Section 6.3:

   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

12.5.  URI Registration

   The following summarizes the information necessary to register the
   helds: URI.  [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the
   RFC number for this specification in the following list.]

   URI Scheme Name:  helds
   Status:  permanent
   URI Scheme syntax:  See section
   URI Scheme Semantics:  The helds: URI is intended to be used as a
      reference to a location object or a location information server.
      Further detail is provided in Section 8 of RFC XXXX.
   Encoding Considerations:  The HELDS: URI is not intended to be human-
      readable text, therefore they are encoded entirely in US-ASCII.
   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme:  The HELD protocol
      described in RFC XXXX, the GEOPRIV Location De-reference Protocol
      [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol] and GEOPRIV Location
      Information Server Discovery [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery].
   Interoperability considerations:  This URI may be used as a parameter
      for the HELD protocol in the locationResponse message.  This URI
      is also used as an input parameter for the GEOPRIV Location De-
      reference Protocol [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol].
      This URI may also be a result of the GEOPRIV Location Information
      Server Discovery [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] and thus used as
      the target for the HELD protocol request messages.  Refer to

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

      Section 8 in RFC XXXX for further detail and a particular example
      on the lack of permanence of a specific HELDS: URI and thus the
      importance of using these URIs only within the specific contexts
      outlined in the references.
   Security considerations:  Section 10 in RFC XXXX addresses the
      necessary security associated with the transport of location
      information between a Device and the LIS to ensure the privacy and
      integrity of the helds: URI.  Section 6.5.1 in RFC XXXX also
      recommends that the URI be allocated such that it does not reveal
      any detail at all about the content of the PIDF-LO that it may
      indirectly reference.
   Contact:  IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (, Mary
      Barnes (
   Author/Change controller:  This scheme is registered under the IETF
      tree.  As such, IETF maintains change control.
   References:  RFC XXXX, GEOPRIV Location De-reference Protocol
      [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol], GEOPRIV Location
      Information Server Discovery [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]

13.  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,
   including the XML schema.

14.  Acknowledgements

   The author/contributors would like to thank the participants in the
   GEOPRIV WG and the following people for their constructive input and
   feedback on this document (in alphabetical order): Nadine Abbott,
   Eric Arolick, Richard Barnes (in particular the security section),
   Peter Blatherwick, Guy Caron, Martin Dawson, Lisa Dusseault, Jerome
   Grenier, Ted Hardie, Cullen Jennings, Neil Justusson, Tat Lam, Marc
   Linsner, Patti McCalmont, Roger Marshall, Perry Prozeniuk, Carl Reed,
   Brian Rosen, John Schnizlein, Shida Schubert, Henning Schulzrinne, Ed
   Shrum, Doug Stuard, Hannes Tschofenig and Karl Heinz Wolf.

15.  Changes since last Version

   NOTE TO THE RFC-Editor: Please remove this section prior to
   publication as an RFC.

   Changes from WG 06 to 07 (PROTO review comments):

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   1) Fix nits: remove unused references, move requirements to
   Informational References section, fix long line in ABNF, fix ABNF
   (quotes around '?'), add schemaLocation to import namespace in XML

   2) Remove text in Device and VPN section referencing DHCP and LLDP-
   MED when a VPN device serves as a LIS, per Issue 1 resolution at
   IETF-71.  (Editorial oversight in producing version 06).

   Changes from WG 05 to 06 (2nd WGLC comments):

   1) Updated security section based on WG feedback, including
   condensing section 10.1.1 (Assuring the proper LIS has been
   contacted), restructuring sections by flattening, adding an
   additional step to the list that had been in the Accuracy section and
   removing summary section.

   2) Changed URI schema to "helds" to address concerns over referential
   integrity and for consistency with mandate of TLS for HELD.

   3) Editorial clarifications including fixing examples to match HELD
   URI definition (e.g., adding port, adding randomness to URI examples,

   4) Updated references removing unused references and moving
   requirements docs to Informational Reference section to avoid

   Changes from WG 04 to 05 (WGLC comments):

   1) Totally replaced the security section with the details provided by
   Richard Barnes so that we don't need a reference to the location
   security document.

   2) Fixed error codes in schema to allow extensibility.  Change the
   IANA registration to be "specification required".

   3) Cleaned up the HELD: URI description, per comments from Martin and
   James and partially addressing HELD-04 Issue 1.  Put the definition
   in a separate section and clarified the applicability (to also
   include being a results of the discovery process) and fixed examples.

   4) Updated the LocationURI section to be more accurate, address
   HELD-04 Issue 3, and include the reference to the new HELD:URI
   section.  Also, fixed an error in the doc in that the top level parm
   in the locationResponse is actually locationUriSet, which contains
   any number of locationURI elements and the "expires" parameter.  So,
   Table 1 was also updated and a new section for the LocationURISet was

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   added that includes the subsections for the "locationURI" and
   "expires".  And, then clarified that "expires" applies to
   "locationURISet" and not per "locationURI".

   5) Editorial nits: pointed out offline by Richard (e.g., by-value ->
   by value, by-reference -> by reference, etc.) and onlist by James and
   Martin.  Please refer to the diff for a complete view of editorial

   6) Added text in HTTP binding section to disable HTTP caching
   (HELD-04 Issue 5 on the list).

   Changes from WG 03 to 04:

   1) Terminology: clarified in terminology section that "attribute" and
   "element" are used in the strict XML sense and "parameter" is used as
   a general protocol term Replaced term "HTTP delivery" with "HTTP
   transport".  Still have two terms "HTTP transport" and "HTTP
   binding", but those are consistent with general uses of HTTP.

   2) Editorial changes and clarifications: per Roger Marshall's and
   Eric Arolick's comments and subsequent WG mailing list discussion.

   3) Changed normative language for describing expected and recommended
   LIS behaviors to be non-normative recommendations in cases where the
   protocol parameters were not the target of the discussion (e.g., we
   can't prescribe to the LIS how it determines location or what it
   defines to be an "accurate" location).

   4) Clarified responseTime attribute (section 6.1).  Changed type from
   "decimal" to "nonNegativeInteger" in XML schema (section 7)

   5) Updated Table 1 in section 6 to only include top-level parameters
   and fixed some errors in that table (i.e., code for locationResponse)
   and adding PIDF-LO to the table.  Added a detailed section describing
   PIDF-LO (section 6.6), moving some of the normative text in the
   Protocol Overview to this section.

   6) Added schema and description for locationURI to section 6.5.
   Added IANA registration for HELD: URI schema.

   7) Added IANA registry for error codes.

   Changes from WG 02 to 03:

   1) Added text to address concern over use of IP address as device
   identifier, per long email thread - changes to section 3 (overview)
   and section 4 (protocol overview).

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   2) Removed WSDL (section 8 updated, section 8.1 and 10.4 removed)

   3) Added extensibility to baseRequestType in the schema (an oversight
   from previous edits), along with fixing some other nits in schema
   (section 7)

   4) Moved discussion of Location URI from section 5.3 (Location
   Response) to where it rightly belonged in Section 6.5 (Location URI

   5) Clarified text for "expires" parameter (6.5.1) - it's an optional
   parm, but required for LocationURIs

   6) Clarified responseTime parameter: when missing, then the LCS
   provides most precise LI, with the time required being implementation

   7) Clarified that the MUST use in section 8 (HTTP binding) is a MUST

   8) Updated references (removed unused/added new).

   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.

   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

   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.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   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

   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

   8) Updated Location Response (section 6.3) to remove reference to
   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.

16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.

   [RFC3704]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
              Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

              Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV
              PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and
              Recommendations", draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-11
              (work in progress), February 2008.

              Mendelsohn, N., Thompson, H., Beech, D., and M. Maloney,
              "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide
              Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
              October 2004,

              Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
              Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004,

              Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Discovering the Local
              Location Information Server (LIS)",
              draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-00 (work in progress),
              December 2007.

16.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
              Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.

   [RFC3693]  Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

              J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4395]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
              Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 115,
              RFC 4395, February 2006.

              Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
              draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in
              progress), March 2008.

              Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
              Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and
              Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07 (work in
              progress), March 2008.

              Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
              Mechanism", draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-02 (work
              in progress), February 2008.

              Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the
              Session Initiation Protocol",
              draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-10 (work in progress),
              February 2008.

              Winterbottom, J., Tschofenig, H., Schulzrinne, H.,
              Thomson, M., and M. Dawson, "An HTTPS Location
              Dereferencing Protocol Using HELD",
              draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-00 (work in
              progress), November 2007.

Appendix A.  HELD Compliance to IETF LCP requirements

   This appendix describes HELD's compliance to the requirements
   specified in the [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

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."


   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."


   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
   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

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

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   location information are not discussed in this document."


   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 10.

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."


   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
   environment that cannot be upgraded to support additional protocols,
   for example to pass additional information through DHCP."


   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.

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

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."


   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."


   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."


   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


Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   HELD uses the discovery mechanism in

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 ". [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile]


   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 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile].

Authors' Addresses

   Mary Barnes (editor)
   2201 Lakeside Blvd
   Richardson, TX


   James Winterbottom
   PO Box U40
   Wollongong University Campus, NSW  2500

   Phone: +61 2 4221 2938

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

   Martin Thomson
   PO Box U40
   Wollongong University Campus, NSW  2500

   Phone: +61 2 4221 2915

   Barbara Stark
   Room 7A41
   725 W Peachtree St.
   Atlanta, GA  30308


Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft                    HELD                        April 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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

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

   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

Barnes, et al.          Expires October 19, 2008               [Page 43]