GEOPRIV M. Thomson
Internet-Draft J. Winterbottom
Intended status: Standards Track Andrew
Expires: August 8, 2009 February 4, 2009
Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS)
draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-06
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
Abstract
A method is described for the discovery of a Location Information
Server. The method uses a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
option. DHCP options are defined for both IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP. A
URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) method is described for use where the
DHCP option is unsuccessful. This document defines a U-NAPTR
Application Service for a LIS, with a specific Application Protocol
for the HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) protocol.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. DHCP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. U-NAPTR Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. LIS Discovery Using DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. LIS Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1. DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Certificate Fingerprints . . . 7
2.3.2. DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Certificate Fingerprints . . . 9
3. U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Determining a Domain Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Overall Discovery Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 LIS URI Option Codes . . 15
6.2. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 LIS Certificate
Fingerprints Option Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Service
Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.4. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol
Tag for HELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
1. Introduction and Overview
The location of a device is a useful and sometimes necessary part of
many services. A Location Information Server (LIS) is responsible
for providing that location information to devices with an access
network. The LIS uses knowledge of the access network and its
physical topology to generate and serve location information to
devices.
Each access network requires specific knowledge about topology.
Therefore, it is important to discover the LIS that has the specific
knowledge necessary to locate a device. That is, the LIS that serves
the current access network. Automatic discovery is important where
there is any chance of movement outside a single access network.
Reliance on static configuration can lead to unexpected errors if a
device moves between access networks.
This document describes DHCP options and DNS records that a device
can use to discover a LIS.
The product of a discovery process, such as the one described in this
document, is the address of the service. In this document, the
result is an http: or https: URI, which identifies a LIS.
The URI result from the discovery process is suitable for location
configuration only; that is, the client MUST dereference the URI
using the process described in HELD
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]. URIs discovered in this
way are not "location by reference" URIs; dereferencing one of them
provides the location of the requester only. Clients MUST NOT embed
these URIs in fields in other protocols designed to carry the
location of the client.
1.1. DHCP Discovery
DHCP ([RFC2131], [RFC3315]) is a commonly used mechanism for
providing bootstrap configuration information allowing a device to
operate in a specific network environment. The bulk of DHCP
information is largely static; consisting of configuration
information that does not change over the period that the device is
attached to the network. Physical location information might change
over this time, however the address of the LIS does not. Thus, DHCP
is suitable for configuring a device with the address of a LIS.
1.2. U-NAPTR Discovery
Where DHCP is not available, the DNS might be able to provide a URI.
This document describes a method that uses URI-enabled NAPTR
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
(U-NAPTR) [RFC4848], a Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)
profile that supports URI results.
For the LIS discovery DDDS application, an Application Service tag
"LIS" and an Application Protocol tag "HELD" are created and
registered with the IANA. Taking a domain name, this U-NAPTR
application uses the two tags to determine the LIS URI.
A domain name is the crucial input to the U-NAPTR resolution process.
Section 3.1 of this document describes several methods for deriving
an appropriate domain name.
1.3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document also uses the term "device" to refer to an end host, or
client consistent with its use in HELD. In HELD and RFC3693
[RFC3693] parlance, the Device is also the Target.
The terms "access network" refers to the network that a device
connects to for Internet access. The "access network provider" is
the entity that operates the access network. This is consistent with
the definition in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] which combines the
Internet Access Provider (IAP) and Internet Service Provider (ISP).
The access network provider is responsible for allocating the device
a public IP address and for directly or indirectly providing a LIS
service.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
2. LIS Discovery Using DHCP
DHCP allows the access network provider to specify the address of a
LIS as part of network configuration. If the device is able to
acquire a LIS URI using DHCP then this URI is used directly; the
U-NAPTR process is not necessary if this option is provided.
This document registers DHCP options for a LIS URI for both IPv4 and
IPv6. A second option for both DHCP versions is also registered to
convey a fingerprint of the certificate expected to be used by the
LIS.
2.1. DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address
This section defines a DHCP for IPv4 (DHCPv4) option for the address
of a LIS.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LIS_URI | Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. .
. LIS URI .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DHCPv4 LIS URI Option Example
LIS_URI: The IANA assigned option number (TBD). [[IANA/RFC-Editor
Note: Please replace TBD with the assigned DHCPv4 option code.]]
Length: The length of the entire LIS URI option in octets.
LIS URI: The address of the LIS. The URI MUST NOT be terminated by
a zero octet.
The DHCPv4 version of this URI SHOULD NOT exceed 255 octets in
length, but MAY be extended by concatenating multiple option
values, as described in [RFC3396].
2.2. DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address
This section defines a DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for the address
of a LIS. The DHCPv6 option for this parameter is similarly
formatted to the DHCPv4 option.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_LIS_URI | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. LIS URI .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: DHCPv6 LIS URI Option
OPTION_LIS_URI: The IANA assigned option number (TBD). [[IANA/
RFC-Editor Note: Please replace TBD with the assigned DHCPv6
option code.]]
Length: The length of the LIS URI option in octets.
The semantics and format of the remainder of the LIS URI option
are identical to the DHCPv4 option, except for the larger
allowance for URI length granted by the 16 bit length field.
DHCPv6 prohibits concatenation of option values.
2.3. LIS Authentication
HTTP over TLS [RFC2818] describes how a host is authenticated based
on an expected domain name using public key infrastructure. Relying
exclusively on a domain name for authentication is not appropriate
for a LIS, since the domain name associated with the access network
might not be known. Indeed, it is often inappropriate to attempt to
assign any particular domain name to an access network.
This specification defines an alternative means of establishing an
expected identity for the server that uses a certificate fingerprint.
One or more fingerprints for the server certificate used by the LIS
is included in a second DHCP option. The client uses the fingerprint
information provided by the DHCP server to authenticate the LIS when
it establishes a TLS session.
A fingerprint is generated by applying a cryptographic hash function
to the DER-encoded certificate. The hash algorithm used for
generating the fingerprint is identified by a textual name taken from
the IANA registry "Hash Function Textual Names" established in
[RFC4572]. Implementations MUST support the SHA-1 algorithm, using
the label "sha-1".
The output of multiple hash functions MAY be included. This provides
a means to upgrade hash functions without affecting backward
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
compatibility. If a hash algorithm is indicated, but not supported
by a device, it MUST use the first fingerprint that is produced by an
algorithm that the device supports. Other fingerprint values MAY be
checked. If any supported fingerprint does not match, the LIS MUST
be considered unauthenticated. If none of the specified hash
algorithms are supported by the device, it MUST consider the LIS to
be unauthenticated.
A client SHOULD request the LIS certificate fingerprint option at the
same time as the LIS URI option. Without the LIS certificate
fingerprint option a client cannot authenticate the LIS.
The certificate fingerprint can be ignored if the LIS URI doesn't
indicate a protocol that supports exchange of certificates (such as
http:). Unless the information used in the certificate fingerprint
option is used, the LIS MUST be considered unauthenticated.
Note: Whether the device goes on to use the information provided by
an unauthenticated LIS depends on device policy. A device might
choose to continue with alternative methods of discovery before
falling back to an unauthenticated LIS.
An access network operator is able to nominate authentication based
on a domain name by omitting fingerprints. If a zero-length
fingerprint option is provided, the device MUST authenticate the
server using the method described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2818
[RFC2818]. If a fingerprint exists, the domain name method MUST NOT
be used.
2.3.1. DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Certificate Fingerprints
This section defines a DHCP for IPv4 (DHCPv4) option for LIS
certificate fingerprints.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LIS_CERT_FP | Length | Hash-Type-Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. Hash-Type .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| F'print-Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. .
. Fingerprint-Value .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. (Hash-Type-Len through Fingerprint-Value Repeated) .
. . . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DHCPv4 LIS Certificate Fingerprints Option Example
LIS_CERT_FP: The IANA assigned option number (TBD). [[IANA/
RFC-Editor Note: Please replace TBD with the assigned DHCPv4
option code.]]
Length: The length of the entire LIS certificate fingerprints option
in octets. This option MAY be zero length, indicating the absence
of fingerprint information.
Hash-Type-Len: The length, in octets, of the "Hash-Type" field.
Hash-Type: A text tag that identifies the hash algorithm used to
generate the fingerprint. The set of values are defined in the
"Hash Function Textual Names" IANA registry [RFC4572].
F'print-Len: The length, in octets of the "Fingerprint-Value" field.
Fingerprint-Value: The octet values of the certificate fingerprint.
An invalid fingerprint is not equivalent to no fingerprint. If
this value is not the expected length of the hash function output,
the fingerprint MUST be considered invalid.
The four fields, "Hash-Type-Len", "Hash-Type", "F'print-Len" and
"Fingerprint-Value" MAY be repeated. Each repetition includes a
different hash type, except for hashes that produce values longer
than 2040 bits (255 octets), for which the "Fingerprint-Value" is
concatenated to derive the value.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
2.3.2. DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Certificate Fingerprints
This section defines a DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for LIS
certificate fingerprints. The DHCPv6 option for this parameter is
similarly formatted to the DHCPv4 option.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_LIS_CERT_FP | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hash-Type-Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. Hash-Type .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| F'print-Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. .
. Fingerprint-Value .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. (Hash-Type-Len through Fingerprint-Value Repeated) .
. . . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: DHCPv6 LIS Certificate Fingerprints Option
OPTION_LIS_CERT_FP: The IANA assigned option number (TBD). [[IANA/
RFC-Editor Note: Please replace TBD with the assigned DHCPv6
option code.]]
Length: The length of the LIS certificate fingerprints option in
octets.
The semantics of remainder of the LIS URI option are identical to
the DHCPv4 option. As shown, length fields are extended to 16
bits, removing the need for concatenation to accomodate values
longer than 255 octets in length. DHCPv6 prohibits concatenation
of option values.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
3. U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery
U-NAPTR resolution for a LIS takes a domain name as input and
produces a URI that identifies the LIS. This process also requires
an Application Service tag and an Application Protocol tag, which
differentiate LIS-related NAPTR records from other records for that
domain.
Section 6.3 defines an Application Service tag of "LIS", which is
used to identify the location service for a particular domain. The
Application Protocol tag "HELD", defined in Section 6.4, is used to
identify a LIS that understands the HELD protocol
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery].
The NAPTR records in the following example demonstrate the use of the
Application Service and Protocol tags. Iterative NAPTR resolution is
used to delegate responsibility for the LIS service from
"zonea.example.net." and "zoneb.example.net." to
"outsource.example.com.".
zonea.example.net.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"" ; regex
outsource.example.com. ; replacement
)
zoneb.example.net.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"" ; regex
outsource.example.com. ; replacement
)
outsource.example.com.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"!*.!https://lis.example.org:4802/?c=ex!" ; regex
. ; replacement
)
Figure 5: Sample LIS:HELD Service NAPTR Records
Details for the "LIS" Application Service tag and the "HELD"
Application Protocol tag are included in Section 6.
U-NAPTR MUST only be used if the DHCP LIS URI option is not
available.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
An https: LIS URI that is a product of U-NAPTR MUST be authenticated
using the domain name method described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2818
[RFC2818].
3.1. Determining a Domain Name
The U-NAPTR discovery method described requires a domain name as
input. This document does not specify how that domain name is
acquired by a device. If a device knows one or more of the domain
names assigned to it, it MAY attempt to use each domain name as
input. Static configuration of a device is possible if a domain name
is known to work for this purpose.
A fully qualified domain name (FQDN) for the device might be provided
by a DHCP server ([RFC4702] for DHCPv4, [RFC4704] for DHCPv6).
DHCPv4 option 15 [RFC2131] could also be used as a source of a domain
name suffix for the device. If DHCP and any of these options are
available, these values could be used as input the U-NAPTR procedure;
however, implementers need to be aware that many DHCP servers do not
provide a sensible value for these options.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
4. Overall Discovery Procedure
The individual components of discovery are combined into a single
discovery procedure. Some networks maintain a topology analogous to
an onion and are comprised of layers, or segments, separating hosts
from the Internet through intermediate networks. Applying the
individual discovery methods in an order that favours a physically
proximate LIS over a remote LIS is preferred.
A host MUST support DHCP discovery and MAY support U-NAPTR discovery.
The process described in this document is known to not work in a very
common deployment scenario, namely the fixed wired environment
described in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].
Alternative methods of discovery to address this limitation are
likely.
The following process ensures a greater likelihood of a LIS in close
physical proximity being discovered:
1. Request the DHCP LIS URI Option for each network interface.
2. Use U-NAPTR to discover a LIS URI using all known domain names.
3. Use a statically configured LIS URI.
A host that has multiple network interfaces could potentially be
served by a different access network on each interface, each with a
different LIS. The host SHOULD attempt to discover the LIS
applicable to each network interface, stopping when a LIS is
successfully discovered on any interface.
A host that discovers a LIS URI MUST attempt to verify that the LIS
is able to provide location information. For the HELD protocol, the
host MUST make a location request to the LIS. If the LIS responds to
this request with the "notLocatable" error code (see Section 4.3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]), the host MUST continue
the discovery process and not make further requests to that LIS on
that network interface.
DHCP discovery MUST be attempted before any other discovery method.
This allows the network access provider a direct and explicit means
of configuring a LIS address. Alternative methods are only specified
as a means to discover a LIS where the DHCP infrastructure does not
support the LIS URI option.
This document does not mandate any particular source for the domain
name that is used as input to U-NAPTR. Alternative methods for
determining the domain name MAY be used.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
Static configuration MAY be used if all other discovery methods fail.
Note however, that if a host has moved from its customary location,
static configuration might indicate a LIS that is unable to provide a
location.
The product of the LIS discovery process is an http: or https: URI.
Nothing distinguishes this URI from other URIs with the same scheme,
aside from the fact that it is the product of this process. Only
URIs produced by the discovery process can be used for location
configuration using HELD. URIs that are not a product of LIS
discovery MUST NOT be used for location configuration.
4.1. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
LIS discovery over a VPN network interface SHOULD NOT be performed.
A LIS discovered in this way is unlikely to have the information
necessary to determine an accurate location.
Since not all interfaces connected to a VPN can be detected by hosts,
a LIS SHOULD NOT provide location information in response to requests
that it can identify as originating from a VPN pool. This ensures
that even if a host discovers a LIS over the VPN, it does not rely on
a LIS that is unable to provide accurate location information. The
exception to this is where the LIS and host are able to determine a
location without access network support.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
5. Security Considerations
The primary attack against the methods described in this document is
one that would lead to impersonation of a LIS. The LIS is
responsible for providing location information and this information
is critical to a number of network services; furthermore, a host does
not necessarily have a prior relationship with a LIS. Several
methods are described here that can limit the probablity of, or
provide some protection against, such an attack.
The address of a LIS is usually well-known within an access network;
therefore, interception of messages does not introduce any specific
concerns.
The integrity of DHCP options is limited by the security of the
channel over which they are provided. Physical security and
separation of DHCP messages from other packets are commonplace
methods that can reduce the possibility of attack within an access
network; alternatively, DHCP authentication [RFC3118] can provide a
degree of protection against modification.
Section 2.3 describes how a LIS is authenticated by clients, using
either certificate fingerprints or a domain name certificate.
An attacker could attempt to compromise the U-NAPTR resolution. A
more thorough description of the security considerations for U-NAPTR
applications is included in [RFC4848].
In addition to considerations related to U-NAPTR, it is important to
recognize that the output of this is entirely dependent on its input.
An attacker who can control the domain name is therefore able to
control the final URI.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 LIS URI Option Codes
The IANA has assigned an option code of (TBD) for the DHCPv4 option
for a LIS URI, as described in Section 2.1 of this document.
The IANA has assigned an option code of (TBD) for the DHCPv6 option
for a LIS URI, as described in Section 2.2 of this document.
6.2. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 LIS Certificate Fingerprints
Option Codes
The IANA has assigned an option code of (TBD) for the DHCPv4 option
for a LIS certificate fingerprints, as described in Section 2.3.1 of
this document.
The IANA has assigned an option code of (TBD) for the DHCPv6 option
for a LIS certificate fingerprints, as described in Section 2.3.2 of
this document.
6.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag
This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Service tag
for a LIS, as mandated by [RFC3958].
Application Service Tag: LIS
Intended usage: Identifies a service that provides a host with its
location information.
Defining publication: RFCXXXX
Related publications: HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
Contact information: The authors of this document
Author/Change controller: The IESG
6.4. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for
HELD
This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Protocol tag
for the HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] protocol, as
mandated by [RFC3958].
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
Application Service Tag: HELD
Intended Usage: Identifies the HELD protocol.
Applicable Service Tag(s): LIS
Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s): U
Defining Publication: RFCXXXX
Related Publications: HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
Contact Information: The authors of this document
Author/Change Controller: The IESG
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Leslie Daigle for her work on
U-NAPTR; Peter Koch for feedback on how not to use DNS for discovery;
Andy Newton for constructive suggestions with regards to document
direction; Hannes Tschofenig and Richard Barnes for input and
reviews; Dean Willis for constructive feedback; Pasi Eronen for the
certificate fingerprint concept; Ralph Droms, David W. Hankins,
Damien Neil, and Bernie Volz for DHCP option format.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
November 2002.
[RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572, July 2006.
[RFC4702] Stapp, M., Volz, B., and Y. Rekhter, "The Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Client Fully Qualified
Domain Name (FQDN) Option", RFC 4702, October 2006.
[RFC4704] Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
Option", RFC 4704, October 2006.
[RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
(DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]
Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark,
"HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-12 (work in
progress), January 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
[RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]
Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and
Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 (work in
progress), June 2008.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LIS Discovery February 2009
Authors' Addresses
Martin Thomson
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2915
Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
James Winterbottom
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2938
Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 20]
