Network Working Group H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational H. Schulzrinne
Expires: October 8, 2007 Columbia U.
April 6, 2007
GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and
Requirements
draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-01.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 October 8, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
Abstract
This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements and
captures discussions for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration
Protocol (LCP). This protocol aims to allow an end host to obtain
location information, by value or by reference, from a Location
Server (LS) that is located in the access network. The obtained
location information can then be used for a variety of different
protocols and purposes. For example, it can be used as input to the
Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) or to convey location
within SIP to other entities.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Fixed Wired Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Moving Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Wireless Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Discovery of the Location Information Server . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Identifier for Location Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
1. Introduction
This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements and
captures discussions for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration
Protocol (LCP). The protocol has two purposes:
o It is used to obtain location information from a special node,
called the Location Server (LS).
o It enables the end host to obtain a reference to location
information. This reference can take the form of a subscription
URI, such as a SIP presence URI, an HTTP/HTTPS URI, or any others.
The requirements related to the task of obtaining such a reference
are described in a separate document, see [4].
The need for these two functions can be derived from the scenarios
presented in Section 3.
For this document we assume that the GEOPRIV Layer 7 LCP runs between
the end host (i.e., the Target in [1] terminology) acting as the LCP
client and the Location Server acting as an LCP server.
This document splits the problem space into separate parts and
discusses them in separate subsections. Section 4 discusses the
challenge of discovering the Location Information Server in the
access network. Section 5 compares different types of identifiers
that can be used to retrieve location information. A list of
requirements for the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
can be found in Section 6.
This document does not describe how the access network provider
determines the location of the end host since this is largely a
matter of the capabilities of specific link layer technologies.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2],
with the qualification that unless otherwise stated these words apply
to the design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol.
We also use terminology from [1] and [3].
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
3. Scenarios
This section describes a few network scenarios where the GEOPRIV
Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol may be used. Note that this
section does not aim to list all possible deployment environments
exhaustively. We focus on the description of the following
environments:
o DSL/Cable networks, WiMax-like fixed access
o Airport, City, Campus Wireless Networks, such as 802.11a/b/g,
802.16e/Wimax
o 3G networks
o Enterprise networks
We illustrate a few examples below.
3.1. Fixed Wired Environment
The following figure shows a DSL network scenario with the Access
Network Provider and the customer premises. The Access Network
Provider operates link and network layer devices (represented as
Node) and the Location Server (LS).
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
+---------------------------+
| |
| Access Network Provider |
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Node | |
| +--------+ +----------+ |
| | | | LS | |
| | +---| | |
| | +----------+ |
| | |
+-------+-------------------+
| Wired Network
<----------------> Access Network Provider demarc
|
+-------+-------------------+
| | |
| +-------------+ |
| | NTE | |
| +-------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| +--------------+ |
| | Device with | Home |
| | NAPT and | Router |
| | DHCP server | |
| +--------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| +------+ |
| | End | |
| | Host | |
| +------+ |
| |
|Customer Premises Network |
| |
+---------------------------+
Figure 1: DSL Scenario
The customer premises consists of a router with a Network Address
Translator with Port Address Translation (NAPT) and a DHCP server as
used in most Customer Premises Networks (CPN) and the Network
Termination Equipment (NTE) where Layer 1 and sometimes Layer 2
protocols are terminated. The router in the home network (e.g.,
broadband router, cable or DSL router) typically runs a NAPT and a
DHCP server. The NTE is a legacy device and in many cases cannot be
modified for the purpose of delivering location information to the
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
end host. The same is true of the device with the NAPT and DHCP
server.
It is possible for the NTE and the home router to physically be in
the same box, or for there to be no home router, or for the NTE and
end host to be in the same physical box (with no home router). An
example of this last case is where Ethernet service is delivered to
customers' homes, and the Ethernet NIC in their PC serves as the NTE.
Current Customer Premises Network (CPN) deployments frequently show
the following characteristics:
1. CPE = Single PC
1. with Ethernet NIC [PPPoE or DHCP on PC]; there may be a
bridged DSL or cable modem as NTE, or the Ethernet NIC might
be the NTE
2. with USB DSL or cable modem [PPPoA, PPPoE, or DHCP on PC]
Note that the device with NAPT and DHCP of Figure 1 is not
present in such a scenario.
2. One or more hosts with at least one router [DHCP Client or PPPoE,
DHCP server in router; VoIP can be soft client on PC, stand-alone
VoIP device, or Analog Terminal Adaptor (ATA) function embedded
in router]
1. combined router and NTE
2. separate router with NTE in bridged mode
3. separate router with NTE [NTE/router does PPPoE or DHCP to
WAN, router provides DHCP server for hosts in LAN; double NAT
The majority of fixed access broadband customers use a router. The
placement of the VoIP client is mentioned to describe what sorts of
hosts may need to be able to request location information. Soft
clients on PCs are frequently not launched until long after bootstrap
is complete, and are not able to control any options that may be
specified during bootstrap. They also cannot control whether a VPN
client is operating on the PC.
3.2. Moving Network
An example of a moving network is a "WIMAX-like fixed wireless"
scenario that is offered in several cities, like New Orleans, Biloxi,
etc., where much of the communications infrastructure was destroyed
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
due to a natural disaster. The customer-side antenna for this
service is rather small (about the size of a mass market paperback
book) and can be run off battery power. The output of this little
antenna is a RJ-45 Ethernet jack. A laptop can be plugged into this
Ethernet jack. The user would then run a PPPoE client to connect to
the network. Once the network connection is established, the user
can run a SIP client on the laptop.
The network-side antenna is, for example, connected through ATM to
the core network, and from there to the same BRASs that serve regular
DSL customers. These Broadband Remote Access Servers (BRASs)
terminate the PPPoE sessions, just like they do for regular DSL.
The laptop and SIP client are, in this case, unaware that they are
"mobile". All they see is an Ethernet connection, and the IP address
they get from PPPoE does not change over the coverage area. Only the
user and the network are aware of the laptop's mobility.
Further examples of moving networks can be found in busses, trains,
airplanes.
Figure 2 shows an example topology for a moving network.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
+--------------------------+
| Wireless |
| Access Network Provider |
| |
| +----------+|
| +-------+ LS ||
| | | ||
| +---+----+ +----------+|
| | Node | |
| | | |
| +---+----+ |
| | |
+------+-------------------+
| Wireless Interface
|
+------+-------------------+
| | Moving Network |
| +---+----+ |
| | NTE | +--------+ |
| | +---+ Host | |
| +-+-----++ | B | |
| | \ +--------+ |
| | \ |
|+---+----+ \ +---+----+ |
|| Host | \ | Host | |
|| A | \+ B | |
|+--------+ +--------+ |
+--------------------------+
Figure 2: Moving Network
3.3. Wireless Access
Figure 3 shows a wireless access network where a moving end host
obtains location information or references to location information
from the LS. The access equipment uses, in many cases, link layer
devices. This figure represents a hotspot network found in hotels,
airports, coffee shops. For editorial reasons we only describe a
single access point and do not depict how the LS obtains location
information since this is very deployment specific.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
+--------------------------+
| Access Network Provider |
| |
| +----------+|
| +-------| LS ||
| | | ||
| +--------+ +----------+|
| | Access | |
| | Point | |
| +--------+ |
| | |
+------+-------------------+
|
+------+
| End |
| Host |
+------+
Figure 3: Wireless Access Scenario
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
4. Discovery of the Location Information Server
When an end host wants to retrieve location information from the LS
it first needs to discover it. Based on the problem statement of
determining the location of the end host, which is known best by
entities close to the end host itself, we assume that the LS is
located in the access network. Several procedures have been
investigated that aim to discovery the LS in such an access network.
DHCP-based Discovery:
In some environments the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol might
be a good choice for discovering the FQDN or the IP address of the
LS. In environments where DHCP can be used it is also possible to
use the already defined location extensions. In environments with
legacy devices, such as the one shown in Section 3.1, a DHCP based
discovery solution is not possible.
DNS-based Discovery:
With this idea the end host obtains its public IP address (e.g.,
via STUN [5]) in order to obtain its domain name (via the usual
reverse DNS lookup). Then, the SRV or NAPTR record for that
domain is retrieved. This relies on the user's public IP address
having a DNS entry.
Redirect Rule:
A redirect rule at a device in the access network, for example at
the AAA client, will be used to redirect the Geopriv-L7 signalling
messages (destined to a specific port) to the LS. The end host
could then discover the LS by sending a packet to almost any
address (as long it is not in the local network). The packet
would be redirected to the respective LS being configured. The
same procedure is used by captive portals whereby any HTTP traffic
is intercepted and redirected.
Multicast Query:
An end node could also discover a LS by sending a multicast
request to a well-known address. An example of such a mechanism
is multicast DNS (see [6] and [7]).
The LS discovery procedure raises deployment and security issues.
When an end host discovers a LS,
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
1. it does not talk to a man-in-the-middle adversary, and
2. it needs to ensure that the discovered entity is indeed an
authorized LS.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
5. Identifier for Location Determination
The LS returns location information to the end host when it receives
a request. Some form of identifier is therefore needed to allow the
LS to determine the current location of the target or a good
approximation of it.
The chosen identifier needs to have the following properties:
Ability for end host to learn or know the identifier:
The end host MUST know or MUST be able to learn the identifier
(explicitly or implicitly) in order to send it to the LS.
Implicitly refers to the situation where a device along the path
between the end host and the LS modifies the identifier, as it is
done by a NAT when an IP address based identifier is used.
Ability to use the identifier for location determination:
The LS MUST be able to use the identifier (directly or indirectly)
for location determination. Indirectly refers to the case where
the LS uses other identifiers locally within the access network,
in addition to the one provided by the end host, for location
determination.
Security properties of the identifier:
Misuse needs to be minimized whereby off-path adversary MUST NOT
be able to obtain location information of other hosts. A on-path
adversary in the same subnet SHOULD NOT be able to spoof the
identifier of another host in the same subnet.
The problem is further complicated by the requirement that the end
host should not be aware of the network topology and the LS must be
placed in such a way that it can determine location information with
the available information. As shown in Figure 1 the host behind the
NTE/NAPT-DHCP device is not visible to the access network and the LS
itself. In the DSL network environment some identifier used at the
NTE is observable for by the LS/access network.
The following list discusses frequently mentioned identifiers and
their properties:
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
Host MAC address:
The host MAC address is known to the end system, but not carried
over an IP hop.
ATM VCI/VPI:
The VPI/VCI is generally only seen by the DSL modem. Almost all
routers in the US use 1 of 2 VPI/VCI value pairs: 0/35 and 8/35.
This VC is terminated at the DSLAM, which uses a different VPI/VCI
(per end customer) to connect to the ATM switch. Only the network
provider is able to map VPI/VCI values through its network. With
the arrival of VDSL, ATM will slowly be phased out in favor of
Ethernet.
Switch/Port Number:
This identifier is available only in certain networks, such as
enterprise networks, typically available via proprietary protocols
like CDP or, in the future, 802.1ab.
Cell ID:
This identifier is available in cellular data networks and the
cell ID might not be visible to the end host.
Authenticated User Identity:
In DSL networks the user credentials are, in many cases, only
known by the router and not to the end host. To the network, the
authenticated user identity is only available if a network access
authentication procedure is executed. In case of roaming it still
might not be available to the access network since security
protocols might provide user identity confidentiality and thereby
hide the real identity of the user allowing the access network to
only see a pseudonym or a randomized string.
Host Identifier:
The Host Identifier introduced by the Host Identity Protocol [8]
allows identification of a particular host. Unfortunately, the
network can only use this identifier for location determination if
the operator already stores an mapping of host identities to
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
location information. Furthermore, there is a deployment problem
since the host identities are not used in todays networks.
Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA):
The concept of a Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) was
introduced by [9]. The basic idea is to put the truncated hash of
a public key into the interface identifier part of an IPv6
address. In addition to the properties of an IP address it allows
a proof of ownership. Hence, a return routability check can be
omitted.
Network Access Identifiers:
A Network Access Identifier [10] is only used during the network
access authentication procedure in RADIUS [11] or Diameter [12].
Furthermore, in a roaming scenario it does not help the access
network to make meaningful decisions since the username part might
be a pseudonym and there is no relationship to the end host's
location.
Unique Client Identifier
The DSL Forum has defined that all devices that expect to be
managed by the TR-069 interface be able to generate an identifier
as described in DSL Forum TR-069v2 Section 3.4.4. It also has a
requirement that routers that use DHCP to the WAN use RFC 4361
[13] to provide the DHCP server with a unique client identifier.
This identifier is, however, not visible to the end host with the
assumption of a legacy device like the NTE. If we assume that the
LTE can be modified then a number of solutions come to mind
including DHCP based location delivery.
IP Address:
The end host's IP address may be used for location determination.
This IP address is not visible to the LS if the end host is behind
one or multipel NATs. This is, however, not a problem since the
location of a host that is located behind a NAT cannot be
determined by the access network. The LS would in this case only
see the public IP address of the NAT binding allocated by the NAT,
which is the correct behavior. The property of the IP address for
a return routability check is attractive as well to return
location information only to a device that transmitted the
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
request. The LS receives the request and provides location
information back to the same IP address. If an adversary wants to
learn location information from an IP address other than its own
IP address then it would not see the response message (unless he
is on the subnetwork or at a router along the path towards the LS)
since the LS would return the message to the address where it came
from.
On a shared medium an adversary could ask for location information
of another host using its IP address. The adversary would be able
to see the response message since he is sniffing on the shared
medium unless security mechanisms (such as link layer encryption)
is in place. With a network deployment as shown in Section 3.1
with multiple hosts in the Customer Premise being behind a NAT the
LS is unable to differentiate the individual end points. For WLAN
deployments as found in hotels, as shown in as shown in
Section 3.3, it is possible for an adversary to eavesdrop data
traffic and subsequently to spoof the IP address in a query to the
LS to learn more detailed location information (e.g., specific
room numbers). Such an attack might, for example, compromise the
privacy of hotel guests. Note that DHCP would suffer from the
same problem here unless each node uses link layer security
mechanism.
Return routability checks are useful only if the adversary does
not see the response message and if the goal is to delay state
establishment. If the adversary is in a broadcast network then a
return routability check alone is not sufficient to prevent the
above attack since the adversary will observe the response.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
6. Requirements
The following requirements and assumptions have been identified:
Requirement L7-1: Identifier Choice
The LS MUST be presented with a unique identifier of its own
addressing realm associated directly or indirectly (i.e., linked
through other identifiers) with the physical location of the end
host.
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.
Requirement 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.
Requirement L7-3: Layer 7 and Layer 2/3 Provider Relationship
The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST NOT assume a business or trust relationship between the
provider of application layer (e.g., SIP, XMPP, H.323) provider
and the access network provider operating the LS.
Requirement 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
LS 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.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
Requirement 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.
Requirement 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 LS used by the client and can thereby detect
whether the LS request was initiated through a VPN tunnel.
Requirement L7-7: Network Access Authentication
The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication.
Requirement 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 [5] or NSIS
NATFW NSLP [14] .
Requirement L7-9: Discovery Mechanism
The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST provide a
mandatory-to-implement discovery mechanism.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
7. Security Considerations
This document addresses security aspect throughout the document.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
9. Contributors
This contribution is a joint effort of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location
Configuration Requirements Design Team of the IETF GEOPRIV Working
Group. The contributors include Henning Schulzrinne, Barbara Stark,
Marc Linsner, Andrew Newton, James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson,
Rohan Mahy, Brian Rosen, Jon Peterson and Hannes Tschofenig.
The design team members can be reached at:
Marc Linsner: mlinsner@cisco.com
Rohan Mahy: rohan@ekabal.com
Andrew Newton: andy@hxr.us
Jon Peterson: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Brian Rosen: br@brianrosen.net
Henning Schulzrinne: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Barbara Stark: Barbara.Stark@bellsouth.com
Martin Thomson: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Hannes Tschofenig: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
James Winterbottom: James.Winterbottom@andrew.com
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the IETF GEOPRIV working group chairs, Andy
Newton, Allison Mankin and Randall Gellens, for creating this design
team. Furthermore, we would like thank Andy Newton for his support
during the design team mailing list, for setting up Jabber chat
conferences and for participating in the phone conference
discussions.
We would also like to thank Murugaraj Shanmugam, Ted Hardie, Martin
Dawson, Richard Barnes, James Winterbottom, Tom Taylor, Otmar Lendl,
Marc Linsner, Brian Rosen, Roger Marshall, Guy Caron, Doug Stuard,
Eric Arolick, Dan Romascanu, Jerome Grenier, Martin Thomson, Barbara
Stark, Michael Haberler for their WGLC review comments.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[3] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for Emergency
Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13 (work in progress),
March 2007.
11.2. Informative References
[4] Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
Mechanism used in Location Configuration and Conveyance",
draft-marshall-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01 (work in progress),
March 2007.
[5] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy, "STUN
- Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through
Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.
[6] Aboba, B., "Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)",
draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47 (work in progress), August 2006.
[7] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS",
draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-06 (work in progress),
August 2006.
[8] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-07
(work in progress), February 2007.
[9] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, March 2005.
[10] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network
Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[11] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865,
June 2000.
[12] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
[13] Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client Identifiers
for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version Four (DHCPv4)",
RFC 4361, February 2006.
[14] Stiemerling, M., "NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol
(NSLP)", draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-14 (work in progress),
March 2007.
[15] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[16] Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol",
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-05 (work in progress), March 2007.
[17] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-ietf-sip-identity-06 (work in progress), October 2005.
[18] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4474, August 2006.
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 2007
Authors' Addresses
Hannes Tschofenig
Nokia Siemens Networks
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bavaria 81739
Germany
Phone: +49 89 636 40390
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
URI: http://www.tschofenig.com
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement April 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).
Tschofenig & Schulzrinne Expires October 8, 2007 [Page 26]
