Geopriv H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Expires: August 17, 2006 H. Tschofenig
Siemens
February 13, 2006
Location Types Registry
draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-04.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 August 17, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document creates a registry for describing the types of places a
human or end system might be found. The registry is then referenced
by other protocols that need a common set of location terms as
protocol constants. Examples of location terms defined in this
document include aircraft, office and train station.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Location Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
1. Introduction
This document creates a registry for location type tokens. We
anticipate that the network, through configuration or management
protocols, tells a mobile device what kind of location it finds
itself in. The device and associated software can then tailor its
behavior to the environment. For example, this document defines the
terms "classroom", "place-of-worship" and "theater". A considerate
owner of a cell phone might program the device to switch from ringer
to vibrate mode in such environments. Just knowing the geographic
location, be it as civic (street address) or geospatial coordinates
would generally not allow the device to make a similar decision.
Naturally, the number of descriptive terms for physical environments
is almost unbounded. This registry tries to identify common terms
that are likely to be useful for communications devices and for
controlling and guiding communication behavior. The terms roughly
correspond to the level of details of location descriptions and icons
found on geographic maps, for example, and are meant to be in common
use across a variety of cultures and countries. The registration
process described in the IANA Considerations section allows to extend
this list as needed, while aiming to prevent an unnecessary explosion
in the registry.
The use of tokens, i.e., protocol constants, makes it easier to build
systems across multiple languages. A user interface can readily
translate a finite set of tokens to user-appropriate textual or
iconic representations. Protocols using this registry are encouraged
to provide additional mechanisms to accommodate location types not
currently registered via free-text fields with appropriate language
and character set labeling.
The terms defined in this registry do not attempt to provide a
hierarchy of location descriptions, except in certain special cases.
For example, the term "restaurant" is defined to include the term
"cafe" and the term "public" encompasses a range of descriptors, as
noted below. The registry makes these more generic terms available
as often the more detailed distinctions may not be available, or
privacy concerns suggest the use of less precise terms that are still
sufficient to guide communications behavior or evaluate the source of
a phone call or message, say.
In many cases, a location might be described by multiple terms that
apply at the same time. For example, the combination of "restaurant"
and "airport" is immediately recognizable. This registry makes no
attempt to limit the number of terms that can be used to describe a
single place or to restrict what combinations are allowed, given that
there are few combinations that are physically impossible. Common
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
sense is probably a better guide here; the authors would not want to
rule out creative business models such as combinations of "parking"
and "restaurant" or "bar" and "hospital". The number of terms that
can be used within the same protocol element is left to the protocol
description.
This document does not describe how the values of the registry are to
be used, as this description is provided by other documents. For
example, [3], describes a options for carrying civic address
information, including the place-type attributes listed in this
document, using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and
DHCPv6). A usage for RADIUS is described in [4], where this
information is conveyed from the RADIUS client to the RADIUS server.
Rich presence (RPID [5]) also utilizes the values of the location
type registry.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [1].
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
3. Location Types
This section describes types of location where an entity is located.
The entity is not further specified and can be a person or an object
such as a network access point.
aircraft:
The entity is in a plane, helicopter or balloon.
airport:
The entity is located in an airport, heliport or similar location.
arena:
The entity is in an enclosed area used for sports events.
automobile:
The entity is in a self-propelled passenger vehicle.
bank:
The entity is in a business establishment in which money is kept
for saving or commercial purposes or is invested, supplied for
loans, or exchanged.
bar:
The entity is in a bar or saloon.
bus:
The entity is traveling in a public or charter bus.
bus-station:
The entity is in a terminal that serves bus passengers; bus depot
or bus terminal.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
cafe:
The entity is in a cafe or coffeeshop.
classroom:
The person is in an academic classroom or lecture hall.
club:
The person is in a dance club or discotheque.
construction:
The entity is on a construction site.
convention-center:
The entity is in a convention center.
cycle:
The entity is riding a bicycle, motorcycle or similar vehicle.
government:
The person is in a government building, such as those used by the
legislative, executive, or judicial branches of governments,
including court houses, police stations and military
installations.
hospital:
The entity is in a hospital, hospice, medical clinic, mental
institution, or doctor's office.
hotel:
The entity is in a hotel, motel, inn or other lodging
establishment.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
industrial:
The entity is in an industrial setting, such as a manufacturing
floor or power plant.
library:
The entity is in a library or other public place in which literary
and artistic materials, such as books, music, periodicals,
newspapers, pamphlets, prints, records, and tapes, are kept for
reading, reference, or lending.
office:
The entity is in a business setting, such as an office.
other:
The entity is in a place without a registered place type
representation.
outdoors:
The entity is in a general outdoors area, such as a park or city
streets.
parking:
The person is in a parking lot or parking garage.
place-of-worship:
The entity is at a religious rites where congregations gather for
religious observances, such as a church, chapel, meetinghouse,
mosque, shrine, synagogue, or temple.
prison:
The person is in a prison, penitentiary, jail, brig, or criminal
mental institution.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
public:
The entity is in a public area such as a shopping mall, street,
park, public building, train station, airport or in public
conveyance such as a bus, train, plane or ship. This general
description encompasses the more precise descriptors 'street',
'public-transport', 'aircraft', 'bus', 'bus-station', 'train',
'train-station', 'airport', 'shopping-area', 'outdoors', and
'watercraft'.
public-transport:
The entity is using any form of public transport, including
aircraft, bus, train or ship.
residence:
The entity is in a private or residential setting, not necessarily
the personal residence of the entity, e.g., including a friend's
home.
restaurant:
The entity is in a restaurant, coffee shop or other public dining
establishment.
school:
The entity is in a school or university, but not necessarily in a
classroom or library.
shopping-area:
The entity is frequenting a shopping mall or shopping area. This
area is a large, often enclosed shopping complex containing
various stores, businesses, and restaurants usually accessible by
common passageways.
stadium:
The person is in a large, usually open structure for sports
events, including a racetrack.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
store:
The person is located in a place where merchandise is offered for
sale; a shop.
street:
The entity is walking in a street.
theater:
The entity is in a theater, lecture hall, auditorium, class room,
movie theater or similar facility designed for presentations,
talks, plays, music performances and other events involving an
audience.
train:
The entity is traveling in a train, monorail, maglev, cable car or
similar conveyance.
train-station:
The person is in a terminal where trains load or unload passengers
or goods; railway station, railroad station, railroad terminal,
train depot.
truck:
The entity is in a truck, used primarily to carry goods rather
than people.
underway:
The person is in a land, water, or air craft which is underway (in
motion).
unknown:
The type of place is unknown.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
warehouse:
The person is in a place in which goods or merchandise are stored;
a storehouse or self-storage facility.
water:
The person is on water, such as an ocean, lake, river, canal or
other waterway.
watercraft:
The person is traveling in a boat or ship.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
4. IANA Considerations
This document creates new IANA registries for location types as
listed in Section 3 starting with 'aircraft' and finishing with
'watercraft'.
Following the policies outline in RFC 2434 [2], new tokens are
assigned after Expert Review by the IETF GEOPRIV working group or its
designated successor. The same procedure applies to updates of
tokens within the registry and to deleting tokens from the registry.
There are no restrictions regarding the update of location-type
values in the registry.
The expert review should be guided by a few common-sense
considerations. For example, tokens should not be specific to a
country, region, organization or company, should be well-defined and
should be widely recognized.
To ensure widespread usability across protocols, tokens should follow
the character set restrictions for XML Names.
Each registration must include the name of the token and a brief
description similar to the ones offered in for the initial
registrations contained this document:
Token Identifier:
Identifier of the token
Description:
Brief description indicating the meaning of the token.
Note that the usage of these tokens is not limited to XML and the
'Token Identifier' is the XML element content and not the XML element
name.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
5. Internationalization Considerations
The location-type values listed in this document MUST NOT be
presented to the user. The values therefore have the characteristic
of tokens/tags and no internationalization support is required.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
6. Security Considerations
This document defines a registry for location types and as such does
not raise security issues.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
7. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank V. Gurbani, P. Kyzivat and J. Rosenberg for
their work on RPID [5] which lead to the location types listed in
this document. Many thanks to Allison Mankin for her guidance. Rick
Jones pointed us to the Global Justice XML work (see
http://it.ojp.gov/jxdm/) that helped us to add more values to the
location registry.
During the IETF last call, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Frank Ellermann
and Sam Hartman provided useful feedback.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", March 1997.
[2] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
8.2. Informative References
[3] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration
Information", draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09 (work in
progress), January 2006.
[4] Tschofenig, H., "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS",
draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04 (work in progress), July 2005.
[5] Schulzrinne, H., "RPID: Rich Presence Extensions to the Presence
Information Data Format (PIDF)", draft-ietf-simple-rpid-10
(work in progress), December 2005.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
Authors' Addresses
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
USA
Phone: +1 212 939 7042
Email: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bavaria 81739
Germany
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
URI: http://www.tschofenig.com
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Location Types Registry February 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Expires August 17, 2006 [Page 18]
