Internet Engineering Task Force J. Peterson
Internet-Draft NeuStar, Inc.
Intended status: Informational T. Hardie
Expires: April 29, 2009 Qualcomm
J. Morris
CDT
October 26, 2008
Implications of 'retransmission-allowed' for SIP Location Conveyance
draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-01
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 April 29, 2009.
Abstract
This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the
<retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information Data
Format for Location Objects (PIDF-LO) in cases where PIDF-LO is
conveyed by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It provides
recommendations for how the SIP location conveyance mechanism should
adapt to these ambiguities.
Documents standardizing the SIP location conveyance mechanisms will
be standards-track documents processed according to the usual SIP
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
process. This document is intended primarily to provide the SIP
working group with a statement of the consensus of the GEOPRIV
working group on this topic. It secondarily provides tutorial
information on the problem space for the general reader.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Core Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Limiting Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Limiting Access using Public Key Encryption . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Limiting Access using Location-by-Reference . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Refraining from Including Location Information . . . . 8
3.4. Choosing Among the Available Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Indicating Permission to Use Location-Based Routing in
SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Behavior of Back-to-Back User Agents . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
1. Introduction
The Presence Information Data Format for Location Objects (PIDF-LO
[RFC4119]) carries both location information (LI) and policy
information set by the Rule Maker, as is stipulated in [RFC3693].
The policy carried along with LI allows the Rule Maker to restrict,
among other things, the duration for which LI will be retained by
recipients and the redistribution of LI by recipients.
The Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261] is one proposed Using
Protocol for PIDF-LO. The conveyance of PIDF-LO within SIP is
specified in [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]. The common
motivation for providing LI in SIP is to allow location to be
considered in routing the SIP message. One example use case would be
emergency services, in which the location will be used by dispatchers
to direct the response. Another use case might be providing location
to be used by services associated with the SIP session; a location
associated with a call to a taxi service, for example, might be used
to route to a local franchisee of a national service and also to
route the taxi to pick up the caller.
Some ambiguities have arisen in the interpretation of Rule Maker
policy when PIDF-LO is conveyed by SIP. The following sections
explore the problem and provide a recommendation.
2. Problem Statement
The <retransmission-allowed> element of RFC4119 was designed for use
in an environment like that of Section 4 of RFC3693, in which
Location Information (LI) propagates from a Location Generator
through a Location Server to a Location Recipient. In this
architecture, it is the responsibility of the Location Server to act
on the rules (policy) governing access control to LI, which are in
turn set by the Rule Maker. The most important of these
responsibilities is delivering LI to authorized Location Recipients
and denying it to others. Internal to RFC4119-compliant location
objects (LOs) are additional privacy rules which are intended to
constrain Location Recipients. These include the <retransmission-
allowed> element. This element is intended to prevent a compromise
of privacy when an authorized recipient of LI shares that LI with
third-party entities, principally those who are not authorized by the
Rule Maker to receive LI. For example, a user might be willing to
share their LI with a pizza shop, but they might not want that pizza
shop to sell their LI to a targeted advertising company that will
contact the user with coupons for a nearby hair salon.
Bear in mind, however, that <retransmission-allowed> is not intended
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
to provide any protocol-level mechanism to prevent unauthorized
parties from learning location through means like eavesdropping. It
is merely a way to express the preferences of the Rule Maker to the
LR. If the LR were, for example, legally bound to follow the privacy
preferences expressed by Rule Makers, then they might incur liability
of they ignored the <retransmission-allowed> parameter. No further
privacy protection is assumed to be provided by <retransmission-
allowed>.
There is a use case for LI that involves embedding it in a SIP
request that will potentially traverse multiple SIP intermediaries
before arriving at a UAS. In this use case, one or more
intermediaries might inspect the LI in order to make a SIP routing
decision; we will hereafter refer to this as location-based routing.
Common examples could include emergency services and other more
mundane cases where the originator of a SIP request wants to reach a
service in proximity to a particular geographic location, such as
contacting a nearby pizza shop. In both such cases the UAC may
intend for selected intermediaries and the UAS to have access to the
LI. In the pizza case, for instance, the UAC shares an address both
for location-based routing and additionally so that the pizza shop
reached by that routing has the address to which a pizza should be
sent.
This location-based routing use case for LI has a number of important
disconnects from the RFC3693 model. Unlike the RFC3693 model, there
is no LS designating to which specific entities LI will be sent.
There may be multiple intermediaries between the UAC and UAS, some of
which need or want to inspect LI (which would seem to qualify them as
LRs) and some of them will not. While SIP proxy servers generally
are not RFC4119-aware and do not need to inspect SIP request bodies
in order to perform their function, nothing precludes proxy servers
inspecting or logging any SIP message bodies, including LI.
Furthermore, it is very difficult for the UAC to anticipate which
intermediaries and which eventual UAS a SIP request might reach.
This architecture is further complicated by the possibility of
sending location information by-reference, that is, placing a URL
where LI can be retrieved in SIP requests instead of using a PIDF-LO
body (commonly called including the PIDF-LO by value) Depending on
the qualities of a reference, further authorization checks may be
performed before LI is retrieved, LI may be customized depending on
who is asking, and so forth. As will be discussed in greater detail
below, the conveyance of a reference may have very different privacy
properties than conveying a PIDF-LO body by-value in a SIP request.
In this architecture, the question of who is an "authorized
recipient" from the point of view of the Rule Maker has been muddy.
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
The SIP elements along the path are authorized to receive and forward
the SIP message; does that make them automatically authorized
recipients of the LI it contains? The final target of the SIP
message will receive the LI along with other information, but it may
be different than the initial target in a variety of scenarios; is it
authorized to read the LI?
These questions and concerns are particularly problematic when
<retransmission-allowed> is set to "no" (the default case). This
core concern might be put as "to whom does <retransmission-allowed>
apply in location-based routing?" More specifically:
Is any entity that reads LI bound by <retransmission-allowed>? If
so, does that mean a proxy that performs location-based routing is
unable to forward a request and complete a SIP call if
<retransmission-allowed> is "no"? Alternatively, must they strip the
location body from the message in order to complete the call?
If the proxy does not understand RFC4119, it may forward a SIP
message containing a policy statement <retransmission-allowed> set to
"no". Is any proxy that does understand RFC4119 required to parse
the LI for this statement, even if it would not do so in order to
route the message?
Is there a need for SIP-level indications regarding retransmission
for the benefit of entities that do not understand 4119?
Since the UAC cannot anticipate who may receive a SIP request, how do
we understand who the intended LR is in the location-based routing
case? Can a UAC have intended for there to be multiple serial LRs in
a transmission? If so, if one LR is authorized to retransmit to
another LR, how will it know it is not also authorized to transmit LI
to other third parties (i.e., how will the serial LRs know to whom
they are authorized to retransmit)? How could all of this be
designated?
3. Recommendation
The following sections provide a recommendation for how the
<retranmission-allowed> flag should be understood in a SIP
environment. The core semantics of this recommendation represent the
consensus of the GEOPRIV working group. While Section 3.5 proposes a
syntax that might be adopted by the SIP WG to implement these
semantics in its protocol, the actual syntax of SIP is the
responsibility of the SIP WG.
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
3.1. Goals
After extensive discussion in both GEOPRIV and SIP contexts, there
seems to be consensus that a solution for this problem must enable
location-based routing to work even when the <retransmission-allowed>
flag is set to "no". A solution should also give the Rule Maker the
ability to allow or forbid the use of LI for location-based routing
and the ability to allow or forbid the use of LI for the consumption
of the endpoint.
3.2. Core Semantics
Consensus has emerged that any SIP entity which receives a SIP
message containing LI through the operation of SIP's normal routing
procedures or as a result of location-based routing should be
considered an authorized recipient of that LI. Because of this
presumption, one SIP element may pass the LI to another even if the
LO it contains has <retransmission-allowed> set to "no"; this sees
the passing of the SIP message as part of the delivery to authorized
recipients, rather than as retransmission. SIP entities are still
enjoined from passing these messages outside the normal routing to
external entities if <retransmission-allowed> is set to "no", as it
is the passing to 3rd parties that <retransmission-allowed> is meant
to control.
This architecture is considerably different from the presumptions of
RFC3963, in that authorized recipients pass the LO on to other
authorized recipients, but it seems to be the most sensible mechanism
given SIP's operation.
To maintain the Rule Maker's ability to affect the consumption of
this information, two different mechanisms may be used to limit the
distribution of LI and one may used to limit the sphere in which it
may be used; these are discussed below.
3.3. Limiting Access
3.3.1. Limiting Access using Public Key Encryption
One way of limiting access to LI is to encrypt the PIDF-LO object in
a SIP request. If the originator knows which specific entity on the
path needs to inspect the LI, and knows a public key for that entity,
this is a straightforward matter. It is even possible to encrypt
multiple instance of PIDF-LO, containing different policies or levels
of location granularity, in the same SIP request if multiple entities
along the path need to inspect the location.
This is most likely to be effective in cases where the originator
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
does not wish the LI to be inspected by intermediate entities and has
the public key for the target of the SIP message, as it is very
difficult for the originator to anticipate the intermediaries through
which a SIP message will pass. It may also be useful in limited
environments where the originator has a trust relationship with a
specific SIP element (e.g. a "home" or first-hop proxy) and it wants
to reveal that LI only to that element.
Note that even in the case where the originator intends to encrypt LI
for the benefit only of the target of the message it may be quite
difficult to anticipate the eventual endpoint of the message. These
encrypted LIs will not be useful in any case where the anticipation
of the originators is not met.
An additional problem posed by this approach is that it requires some
sort of public key discovery system, which compounds the operational
complexity significantly. While this method is included for
completeness, it is the consensus of the working group that the
deployment scenarios in which this is appropriate will be relatively
few; we do not believe it is an appropriate baseline approach.
3.3.2. Limiting Access using Location-by-Reference
Another, more feasible approach is leveraging location by reference.
When a SIP request conveys a reference, it cannot be properly said to
be conveying location; location is conveyed upon dereferencing the
URI in the question, and the meaning of <retransmission-allowed> must
be understood in the context of that conveyance, not the forwarding
of the SIP request.
The properties of references, especially the security properties,
vary significantly depending on the nature and disposition of the
resource indicated. Clearly, if the referenced PIDF-LO is available,
in the same form, to any entity along the SIP signaling path that
requests it, then inserting a reference has no advantages over
inserting LI by value (and introduces wasteful complexity). However,
if the Rule Maker influences the results of the dereferencing
process, including determining who can receive LI at what degree of
granularity and what policies are bound with the LI, the security
properties are different.
It might superficially appear that this suffers from the same
problems as the encryption approach, since the Rule Maker must
anticipate a set of entities who are authorized to receive location
information. The difference is that this set does not need to be
communicated in the SIP request in order for authorization decisions
to be made. There is a world of difference between managing a
whitelist of a thousand parties that might ask for LI and sending a
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
SIP request containing a thousand differently-encrypted adumbrations
on LI - the former is commonplace and the latter is impossible.
Additionally, some Rule Maker policies might not even require the
establishment of an exhaustive whitelist. For example, it may be
that there exists a finite set of commercial requestors that the Rule
Maker would like to block, in a manner similar to the way ad-blockers
operate in modern web browsers.
In any system where one makes an authorization decision, a certain
cost in authentication must be paid - the greater the assurance the
greater the cost. The precise cost will of course depend on the URI
scheme of the reference. For SIP, Digest has a low computational
cost but requires pre-established keys, which limits applicability.
RFC4474 Identity does not require any pre-association, but it does
make signaling more heavyweight and requires the deployment of
additional features in the network, including a web-like PKI.
But even if no authentication takes place, in the LbyR case the
meaning of <retransmission-allowed> is unambiguous - each entity to
which LI is conveyed in the dereference process is bound by the
retransmission policy. The cost of the reference itself is of course
the server that maintains the resource. While not every SIP client
has access to an appropriate server for this purpose, the fact that
PIDF-LO builds on the typical SIP presence service makes this less
implausible than it might be. Moreover, the LbyR approach casts the
conveyance architecture in a manner familiar from RFC3693, with a
Location Server receiving requests from Location Recipients which may
be accepted or denied. This allows the preservation of the original
semantics of <retransmission-allowed>.
3.3.3. Refraining from Including Location Information
The most fundamental mechanism for limiting access to location
information is simply not including it. While location-based-routing
might conceivably occur in almost any SIP message in the future,
there is no requirement that location be included in the general case
to support it. If it is not included and is required, an appropriate
error indicating the lack may be returned and the choice made to
continue communication with the information included. This challenge
and response will slow the establishment of communication when it is
required, but it is the most basic way to ensure that location
distribution is limited to the times when it is required for
communication to proceed.
3.4. Choosing Among the Available Mechanisms
Refraining from including location is the most appropriate choice for
systems that do not wish to reveal location to any party in the SIP
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
path.
Location-by-Reference is generally recommended as the most deployable
mechanism for limiting access to LI which is passed via a SIP
message. It is significantly easier to deploy than public key
discovery systems, allows for both whitelists and blacklists, and can
scale in ways that the inclusion of multiple encrypted bodies cannot.
Encryption may be used in a limited set of circumstance where
location-by-value must be used.
3.5. Indicating Permission to Use Location-Based Routing in SIP
The discussion in Section 3.3.2 describes 3 mechanisms for limiting
the distribution of LI to specific entities. There remains the
problem of limiting the use to which LI included by value or by
reference may be put. In order to meet the need to limit that use,
this document recommends the creation of a syntactical element in SIP
to carry this information. As an exemplary concrete proposal, we
recommend a "Location-Routing-Allowed" header as described below.
When "Location-Routing-Allowed" is set to "Yes", the Rule Maker is
indicating permission to use the included LI for location-based
routing. When "Location-Routing-Allowed" is set to "No", the
originator is indicating that this use is not permitted. "Location-
Routing-Allowed" being set to "No" has no protocol-level mechanism
for enforcement of this behavior; like the PIDF-LO <retransmission-
allowed> being set to "no", it is a way for the Rule Maker to express
a preference to the SIP elements which are LI recipients. It may,
however, present a significant optimization. Where a location-by-
reference is included with "Location-Routing-Allowed" set to "No",
the SIP elements along the path know that they do not need to attempt
to dereference the location information; this is significantly faster
than attempting the dereference and being denied at the
authentication stage.
We recommend that "Location-Routing-Allowed" be made mandatory-to-
implement for elements complying with [1].
We recommend that it appear in any SIP message that contains a
location, whether by reference or by value.
We recommend that any SIP message containing a location but no
"Location-Routing-Allowed" header should be treated as containing a
"Location-Routing-Allowed" header set to "No".
We recommend that a UA be allowed to insert a "Location-Routing-
Allowed" header even when it has not included a location, in order to
set the policy for any locations inserted by other SIP elements.
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
This allows the UA to assert that it is a Rule Maker for locations,
even when the network architecture in which the UA is present inserts
the location into SIP messages after the UA has originated the SIP
exchange.
We recommend that any SIP element inserting a location, whether by
reference or by value, insert a "Location-Routing-Allowed header if
one is not already present. If one is present, it should not be
over-ridden by the SIP element inserting the location.
We recommend that any SIP element not the originator of a message and
not inserting a location be enjoined from inserting a "Location-
Routing-Allowed" header.
3.6. Behavior of Back-to-Back User Agents
While the behavior of back-to-back user agents (B2BUAs) is outside
the scope of SIP standardization, there are nevertheless ways that a
B2BUA might approach conveyed location information and the
<retransmission-allowed> flag that will have better results than
others. This section documents the consequences of B2BUA behavior
interacting with <retransmission-allowed>.
Typically, B2BUAs are described as terminating one session and
originating a new one. From that perspective, a B2BUA receiving LI
on one of its "backs" might treat itself as terminating the flow of
information and thus view itself as a recipient for the purposes of
<retransmission-allowed>. In that case, it should originate a new
information flow containing that LI by value in the other direction
only if the PIDF-LO it receives permitted it (i.e. if
<retransmission-allowed> is set to 'yes'). If the PIDF-LO it
receives is encrypted, it can pass it onward with the understanding
that a recipient capable of decrypting it is authorized; the B2BUA
does not seem to be a recipient in this instance.
Note that this case is also easier to handle using the location-by-
reference model. Since the passing of location-by-reference does not
properly include the location itself, it can pass a location-by-
reference pointer in the new direction with the understanding that
the dereferencing protocol handles the determination of whether those
dereferencing the location are authorized recipients or not.
If both sides of a B2BUA speak SIP, note that failing to copy any
"Location-Routing-Allowed" header value found in the input flow when
it re-originates the flow will neglect the policies of the Rule
Maker.
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations
The privacy and security implications of distributing location
information are the fundamental subject of this document.
6. Acknowledgements
James Polk provided a series of questions regarding the specifics of
the Location-Routing-Allowed mechanism, and this resulted in the
recommendations in Section 3.4.
7. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]
Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the
Session Initiation Protocol",
draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-10 (work in progress),
September 2008.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and
J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 2008
Ted Hardie
Qualcomm
Email: hardie@qualcomm.com
John Morris
CDT
Email: jmorris@cdt.org
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Location Retransmission October 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
"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.
Peterson, et al. Expires April 29, 2009 [Page 13]
