[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
GEOPRIV WG                                                   J. Peterson
Internet-Draft                                                   NeuStar
Expires: April 26, 2004                                 October 27, 2003

            A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.


   This document describes an object format for carrying geographical
   information on the Internet.  This location object extends the
   Presence Information Data Format (PIDF), which was designed for
   communicating privacy-sensitive presence information and which has
   similar properties.

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    Location Object Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1   Baseline PIDF Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2   Extensions to PIDF for Location and Usage Rules  . . . . . .  5
   2.2.1 'location-info' element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2.2 'usage-rules' element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.2.3 Schema definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.3   Example Location Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.    Carrying PIDF in a Using Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.    Securing PIDF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.    IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.1   URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
         urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   A.    To Do and Unmet requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
         Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   B.    Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
         Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

1. Introduction

   Geographical location information describes a physical position in
   the world that may correspond to the past, present or future location
   of a person or device.  Numerous applications used in the Internet
   today benefit from sharing location information (including mapping/
   navigation applications, 'friend finders' on cell phones, and so on).
   However, such applications may disclose the whereabouts of a person
   in a manner contrary to the user's preferences.  Privacy lapses may
   result from poor protocol security (which permits eavesdroppers to
   capture location information), inability to articulate or accommodate
   user preferences, or similar defects common in existing systems.  The
   privacy concerns surrounding the unwanted disclosure of a person's
   physical location are among the more serious that confront users on
   the Internet.

   Consequently, a need has been identified to convey geographical
   location information within an object that includes a user's privacy
   and disclosure preferences and which is protected by strong
   cryptographic security.  Previous work [12] has observed that this
   problem bears some resemblance to the general problem of
   communicating and securing presence information on the Internet.
   Presence (which is defined in [11]) provides a real-time
   communications disposition for a user, and thus has similar
   requirements for selective distribution and security.

   Therefore, this document extends the XML-based Presence Information
   Data Format (PIDF [2]) to allow the encapsulation of location
   information within a presence document.

   This document does not invent any format for location information
   itself.  Numerous already existing formats based on civil location,
   spatial coordinates, and the like have been developed in other
   standards fora.  Instead, this document defines an object that is
   suitable for both identifying and encapsulating pre-existing location
   information formats, and for providing adequate security and policy
   controls to regulate the distribution of location information over
   the Internet.

   The location object described in this document can be used
   independently of any 'using protocol', as the term is defined in the
   GEOPRIV requirements [9].  It is considered an advantage of this
   proposal that existing presence protocols (such as [14]) would
   natively accommodate the location object format defined in this
   document, and be capable of composing location information with other
   presence information, since this location object is an extension of
   PIDF.  However, the usage of this location object format is not
   limited to presence using protocols - any protocol that can carry XML

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

   or MIME types can carry PIDF.

   Some of the requirements in [9] and [10] concern data collection and
   usage policies associated with location objects.  This document
   provides only the minimum markup necessary for a user to express the
   necessary privacy preferences as specified by the geopriv
   requirements (the three basic elements in [10]).  However, this
   document does not demonstrate how a full XML-based ruleset
   accommodating the needs of Location Servers could be embedded in PIDF
   - it is assumed that other protocols (such as HTTP) will be used to
   move rules between Rule Holders and Location Servers, and that full
   rulesets will be defined in a separate document.

2. Location Object Format

2.1 Baseline PIDF Usage

   The GEOPRIV requirements [9] (or REQ for short throughout this
   section) specify the need for a name for the person, place or thing
   that location information describes (REQ 2.1).  PIDF has such an
   identifier already, since every PIDF document has an "entity"
   attribute of the 'presence' element that signifies the URI of the
   entity whose presence the document describes.  Consequently, if
   location information is contained in a PIDF document, the URI in the
   "entity" attribute of the 'presence' element indicates the target of
   that location information.  The URI in the "entity" attribute
   generally uses the "pres" URI scheme defined in [3].  Such URIs can
   serve as unlinkable pseudonyms (per REQ 12).

   PIDF optionally contains a 'contact' element that provides a URI
   where the presentity can be reached by some means of communication
   (usually, the URI scheme in the value of the 'contact' element gives
   some sense of how the presentity can be reached: if it uses the SIP
   URI scheme, for example, SIP can be used, and so on).  Location
   information can be provided without any associated means of
   communication - thus, the 'contact' element may or may not be
   present, as desired by the creator of the PIDF document.

   PIDF optionally contains a 'timestamp' element that designates the
   time at which the PIDF document was created.  This element
   corresponds to REQ 2.7a.

   PIDF contains a 'status' element, which is mandatory.  'status'
   contains an optional child element 'basic' that describes the
   presentity's communications disposition (in the very broad terms:
   either OPEN or CLOSED).  For the purposes of this document, it is not
   necessary for 'basic' status to be included.  If, however,

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

   communications disposition is included in a PIDF document above and
   beyond geolocation, then 'basic' status may appear in a PIDF document
   that uses these extensions.

   PIDF also contains a 'tuple' umbrella element, which holds an "id"
   element used to uniquely identify a segment of presence information
   so that changes to this information can be tracked over time (as
   multiple notifications of presence are received).  'timestamp',
   'status', and 'contact' are composed under 'tuple'.

2.2 Extensions to PIDF for Location and Usage Rules

   This XML Schema extends the 'status' element of PIDF with a complex
   element called 'geopriv'.  There are two major subelements that are
   encapsulated within geopriv: one for location information, and one
   for usage rules.  Both of these subelements are mandatory, and are
   described in subsequent sections.  By composing this two subelements
   under 'geopriv', the usage rules are clearly and explicitly
   associated with the location information.

   For extensibility (see REQ 1.4), the schema allows any other
   subelements to appear under the 'geopriv' element.  No such
   subelements are currently envisioned by this document.

2.2.1 'location-info' element

   Each 'geopriv' element MUST contain one 'location-info' element.  A
   'location-info' element consists of one or more chunks of location
   information (per REQ 2.5).  The format of the location information
   (REQ 2.6) is identified by the imported XML Schema describing the
   namespace in question.  All PIDF documents that contain a 'geopriv'
   element MUST contain one or more import directives indicating the XML
   Schema(s) that will be used as geolocation formats.

   In order to ensure interoperability of GEOPRIV implementations, it is
   necessary to select a baseline location format that all compliant
   implementations support (see REQ 3.1).  At this time, there is not
   sufficient working group consensus within the GEOPRIV WG to award
   this distinction to any particular location format.  Since it
   satisfies REQ 2.5.1, this document works from the assumption that GML
   3.0 [15] will be this mandatory format (a MUST implement for all PIDF
   implementations supporting the 'geopriv' element).

   The Geography Markup Language (GML) is an extraordinarily thorough
   and versatile system for modeling all manner of geographic topologies
   and objects.  The simplest package for GML supporting location
   information is the 'feature.xsd' schema.  Various format descriptions
   (including latitude/longitude based location information) are

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

   supported by Feature (see section of [15] for examples),
   which resides here:


   Note that by importing the Feature schema, necessary GML baseline
   schemas are transitively imported.

   Complex features (such as modeling topologies and polygons,
   directions and vectors, temporal indications of the time for which a
   particular location is valid for a target) are also available in GML,
   but require importing additional schemas.  For the purposes of
   baseline interoperability has defined by this document, only support
   for the 'feature.xsd' GML schema is REQUIRED.

2.2.2 'usage-rules' element

   At the time this document was written, the policy requirements for
   GEOPRIV objects were not definitively completed.  However, the
   'usage-rules' element exists to satisfy REQ 2.8, and the requirements
   of the GEOPRIV policy requirements [10] document.  Each 'geopriv'
   element SHOULD contain one 'usage-rules' element - Location
   Generators MAY opt not to include this element if the Rule Maker has
   requested that all sub-elements given below have their default

   Following the policy requirements document (Section 3.1), there are
   three fields that need to be expressible in Location Objects
   throughout their lifecycle (from Generator to Recipient):  one field
   that limits retransmission, one that limits retention, and one that
   contains a reference to external rulesets.  Those three fields are
   instantiated here by the first three elements.  The fourth element
   provides a generic space for human-readable policy directives.  Any
   of these fields MAY be present in a Location Object 'usage-rules'
   element; none are required to be.

      'retransmission-allowed': When the value of this element is 'no',
      the Recipient of this Location Object is not permitted to share
      the enclosed Location Information, or the object as a whole, with
      other parties.  When the value of this element is 'yes',
      distributing this Location is permitted (barring an existing out-
      of-band agreement or obligation to the contrary).  By default, the
      value MUST be assumed to be 'no'.  Implementations MUST include
      this field, with a value of 'no', if the Rule Maker specifies no

      'retention-expires': This field specifies an absolute date at

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

      which time the Recipient is no longer permitted to possess the
      location information and its encapsulating Location Object - both
      may be retained only up until the time specified by this field.
      By default, the value MUST be assumed to be twenty-four hours from
      the 'timestamp' element in the PIDF document, if present; if the
      'timestamp' element is also not present, then twenty-four hours
      from the time at which the Location Object is received by the
      Location Recipient.  If the value in the 'retention-expires'
      element has already passed when the Location Recipient receives
      the Location Object, the Recipient MUST discard the Location
      Object immediately.

      'ruleset-reference': This field contains a URI that indicates
      where a fuller ruleset of policies related to this object can be
      found.  This URI SHOULD use the HTTPS URI scheme, and if it does,
      the server that holds these rules MUST authenticate any attempt to
      access these rules - usage rules themselves may divulge private
      information about a Target or Rule Maker.  The URI MAY
      alternatively use the CID URI scheme [7], in which case it MUST
      denote a MIME body carried with the Location Object by the using
      protocol.  Rulesets carried as MIME bodies SHOULD be encrypted and
      signed by the Rule Maker; unsigned rulesets SHOULD NOT be honored
      by Location Servers or Location Recipients.  Note that in order to
      avoid network lookups that result in an authorization failure,
      creators of Location Objects MAY put HTTPS-based ruleset-
      references into an encrypted external MIME body referenced by a
      CID; in this way, recipients of the Location Object that are
      unable to decrypt the external MIME body will not learn the HTTPS
      URI unless they are able to decrypt the MIME body.

      'note-well': This field contains a block of text containing
      further generic privacy directives.  These directives are intended
      to be human-readable only, not to be processed by any automaton.

2.2.3 Schema definition

   Note that the XML namespace [4] for this extension to PIDF contains a
   version number 1.0 (as per REQ 2.10).

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
     elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
      <xs:complexType name="geopriv">

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

         <xs:element name="location-info" type="tns:locInfoType"
            minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="usage-rules" type="tns:locPolicyType"
            minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"

      <xs:complexType name="locInfoType">
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"

      <xs:complexType name="locPolicyType">
         <xs:element name="retransmission-allowed" type="tns:retrans"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="retention-expiry" type="xs:dateTime"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="retention-expiry" type="xs:anyURI"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="note-well" type="tns:notewell"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"

        <xs:simpleType name="retrans">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="yes"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="no"/>

        <xs:complexType name="notewell">
            <xs:extension base="xs:string">
              <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang"/>


Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

2.3 Example Location Object

   The following XML instance document is an example of the use of a
   simple GML 3.0 markup with a few of the policy directives specified
   above within a PIDF document.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
     <tuple id="sg89ae">
             <gml:Point gml:id="point96" srsName="epsg:4326">
               <gml:coordinates>31:56:00S 115:50:00E</gml:coordinates>

   Note that this shows a PIDF document without any MIME headers or
   security applied to it (see Section 4 below).

3. Carrying PIDF in a Using Protocol

   A PIDF document is an XML document, and therefore PIDF might be
   carried in any protocol that is capable of carrying XML.  A MIME type
   has also been registered for PIDF: 'application/cpim-pidf+xml'.  PIDF
   may therefore be carried as a MIME body in protocols that use MIME
   (such as SMTP, HTTP, or SIP) with an encapsulating set of MIME
   headers, including a Content-Type of 'application/cpim-pidf+xml".

   Further specification of the behavior of using protocols (including
   subscribing to or requesting presence information) is outside the
   scope of this document.

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

4. Securing PIDF

   There are a number of ways in which XML documents can be secured.
   XML itself supports several ways of partially securing documents,
   including element-level encryption and digital signature properties.

   For the purposes of this document, only the securing of a PIDF
   document as a whole, rather than element-by-element security, is
   considered.  None of the requirements [9] suggest that only part of
   the information in a location object might need to be protected while
   other parts are unprotected - virtually any such configuration would
   introduce potentials for privacy leakage.  Consequently, the use of
   MIME-level security is appropriate.

   S/MIME [5] allows security properties (including confidentiality,
   integrity and authentication properties) to be applied to the
   contents of a MIME body.  Therefore, all PIDF implementations that
   support the XML Schema extensions for location information described
   in this document MUST support S/MIME, and in particular must support
   the CMS [6] EnvelopedData and SignedData messages, which are used for
   encryption and digital signatures respectively.  It is believed that
   this mechanism meets REQs 2.10, 13, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4.

   Additionally, all compliant applications MUST implement the AES
   encryption algorithm for S/MIME, as specified in [8] (and per REQ
   15.1).  Of course, implementations MUST also support the baseline
   encryption and digital signature algorithms described in the S/MIME

   S/MIME generally entails the use of X.509 [17] certificates.  In
   order to encrypt a request for a particular destination end-to-end
   (i.e.  to a Location Recipient), the Location Generator must possess
   credentials (typically an X.509 certificate) that have been issued to
   the Location Recipient.  Implementations of this specification SHOULD
   support X.509 certificates for S/MIME, and MUST support password-
   based CMS encryption (see [18]).

   S/MIME was designed for end-to-end security between email peers that
   communicate through multiple servers (i.e mail transfer agents) that
   do not modify message bodies.  There is, however, at least one
   instance in which Location Servers modify Location Objects - namely
   when Location Servers enforce policies on behalf of the Rule Maker.
   For example, a Rule Maker may specify that Location Information
   should be coarsened (made less specific) before it is transmitted to
   particular recipients.  If the Location Server were unable to modify
   a Location Object, because it was encrypted, signed, or both, it
   would be unable to accomplish this function.  Consequently, when a
   Location Generator wants to allow a Location Server to modify such

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

   messages, they MAY encrypt such messages with a key that can be
   decrypted the Location Server (the digital signature, of course, can
   still be created with keying material from the Location Generator's
   certificate).  After modifying the Location Object, the Location
   Server can re-sign the Object with its own credentials (encrypting it
   with any keys issued to the Location Recipient, if they are known to
   the Server).

   Note that policies for data collection and usage of location
   information, in so far as they are carried within a location object,
   are discussed in Section 2.2.2.

5. Security Considerations

   The threats to which an Internet service carrying geolocation might
   be subjected are detailed in [16].  The requirements that were
   identified in that analysis of the threat model were incorporated
   into [9], in particular within Section 7.4.  This document aims to be
   compliant with the security requirements derived from those two
   undertakings in so far as they apply to the location object itself
   (as opposed to the using protocol).

   Security of the location object defined in this document, including
   normative requirements for implementations, is discussed in Section
   4.  This security focuses on end-to-end integrity and confidentiality
   properties that are applied to a location object for its lifetime via

   Security requirements associated with using protocols (including
   authentication of subscribers to geographical information, and so on)
   are outside the scope of this document.

6. IANA Considerations

6.1 URN Sub-Namespace Registration for

   This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in

      URI: The URI for this namespace is

      Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
      (geopriv@ietf.org), Jon Peterson (jon.peterson@neustar.biz).


Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

                <?xml version="1.0"?>
                <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
                <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                  <meta http-equiv="content-type"
                  <title>GEOPRIV PIDF Extensions</title>
                  <h1>PIDF Extensions of Geographical Information and Privacy</h1>
                  <p>See <a href="[[[URL of published RFC]]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>

Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
        levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W. and
        J. Peterson, "CPIM Presence Information Data Format", draft-
        ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-07 (work in progress), August 2001.

   [3]  Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", draft-ietf-
        impp-pres-03 (work in progress), May 2003.

   [4]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", draft-mealling-iana-
        xmlns-registry-05 (work in progress), June 2003.

   [5]  Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", draft-
        ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-03 (work in progress), January 2003.

   [6]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 3369, August

   [7]  Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
        Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.

   [8]  Schaad, J., "Use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
        Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
        3565, July 2003.

Informative References

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

   [9]   Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J. and J.
         Polk, "Geopriv requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-reqs-03 (work
         in progress), February 2003.

   [10]  Morris, J., Mulligan, D. and J. Cuellar, "Core Privacy
         Protections for Geopriv Location Object", draft-morris-geopriv-
         core-02 (work in progress), June 2003.

   [11]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and
         Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

   [12]  Peterson, J., "A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of
         Geopriv Location Objects", draft-peterson-geopriv-pres-00 (work
         in progress), February 20003.

   [13]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August

   [14]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, May 2002.

   [15]  OpenGIS, "", OGC 02-023r4, January 2003, <http:// http://

   [16]  Danley, M., Morris, J., Mulligan, D. and J. Peterson, "Threat
         Analysis of the geopriv Protocol", draft-ietf-geopriv-threats-
         00 (work in progress), February 2003.

   [17]  ITU-T, "Recommendation X.509 - Open Systems Interconnection -
         The Directory: Authentication", ITU-T X.509, June 1997, <http:/
         / http://www.itu.int>.

   [18]  Gutmann, P., "Password-based Encryption for CMS", RFC 3211,
         December 2001.

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

Author's Address

   Jon Peterson
   NeuStar, Inc.
   1800 Sutter St
   Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520

   Phone: +1 925/363-8720
   EMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
   URI:   http://www.neustar.biz/

Appendix A. To Do and Unmet requirements

   Below are various GEOPRIV requirements [9] that currently are not met
   by this document.  These requirements may be met in future versions
   of the document.

      REQ 1.5: Requesting location information is deferred to the using
      protocol in this paradigm of GEOPRIV.  The Location Object
      contains no support for this feature either way.

      REQ 2.2: The identity of the Location Recipient should not have to
      be known to the Location Generator - it is possible that the
      Generator publishes its location information to a Location Server
      that enforces policies relevant to various Recipients without
      informing the Generator that location information has been
      requested.  Carrying the identity of the recipient is deferred to
      the using protocol in this paradigm of GEOPRIV.

      REQ 2.3 & 2.4: These requirements would need to be further
      specified before it would be possible for a solution document to
      satisfy them.  It is not clear what these credentials are, nor why
      the Location Generator would possess them and place them inside
      Location Objects.

      REQ 3.2: Although this is only a SHOULD in the requirement, we
      also need to identify an appropriate worldwide postal address
      format (surely there are existing XML standards for this that we
      can reuse).

   XML Schemas and examples have not been validated.

Appendix B. Acknowledgments

   This document was produced with the assistance of many members of the
   GEOPRIV IETF working group.

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj              October 2003

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Peterson                 Expires April 26, 2004                [Page 15]