ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Intended status: Standards Track November 26, 2006
Expires: May 30, 2007
Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers
draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-lost-sync-00.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 May 30, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
The LoST (Location-to-Service Translation) protocol is used to map
locations to service URLs. This document defines a set of LoST
extensions that allow LoST servers to synchronize their lists of
mappings.
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Distributing Mappings via <pushMappingsRequest> . . . . . . . 3
4. Synchronizing Mapping Stores via <getMappingsRequest> and
<getMappingsResponse> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. LoST Synchronization Namespace Registration . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. RelaxNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
1. Introduction
The LoST (Location-to-Service Translation) protocol [2] maps
geographic locations to service URLs. As specified in the LoST
architecture description [3], there are a variety of LoST servers
that cooperate to provide a global, scalable and resilient mapping
service. The LoST protocol specification only describes the protocol
used for individual seeker-originated queries. This document adds
LoST operations that allow forest guides, resolver clusters and
authoritative servers to synchronize their database of mappings.
In the LoST architecture, servers can peer, i.e., have an on-going
data exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up
manually, based on local policies. A server can peer with any number
of other servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides;
resolvers peer with forest guides and other resolvers (in the same
cluster); authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides and
other authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above or
below them in the tree. If the type of LoST role does not matter, we
refer to LoST protocol participants as LoST nodes.
Authoritative mapping servers push coverage regions "up" the tree,
i.e., from child nodes to parent nodes. The child informs the parent
of the geospatial or civic region that it covers. The service URL
contains the LoST URL of the child node.
This extension defines two new requests, <pushMappingsRequest> and
<getMappingsRequest>, that allow peering servers to exchange
mappings. These requests are used for all peering relationships and
always contain mapping entries, but naturally the content of the data
exchanged differs.
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 RFC 2119 [1].
This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping
architecture document [3].
3. Distributing Mappings via <pushMappingsRequest>
When a LoST node obtains new information that is of interest to its
peers, it pushes the new mappings to its peers. This information
might arrive through non-LoST means, such as a manual addition to the
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
local mappings database, or through another LoST node, via a
<pushMappings> request or a <getMappingsResponse> described later.
Mappings in that request replace existing mappings with the same 'id'
parameter and a more recent 'created' parameter. (Enforcing the
latter avoids that a node that wakes up injects outdated information
into the system.)
Each peer keeps track of which peer it has exchanged which mapping
elements with. Mapping elements are identified by the 'id' and 'tag'
parameters. A mapping is considered the same if these two attributes
match. Nodes never push the same information to the same peer twice.
To delete a mapping, the content of the mapping is left empty. The
node can delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but
has to remember which peers it has distributed this update to. The
mapping is identified only by the 'sourceId' and 'source' parameters;
the other parameters are ignored if present. In other words, the
delete operation affects all versions of a mapping.
The response to <pushMappingsRequest> is <pushMappingsResponse>. It
only contains <errors> elements if there is an error condition. Only
the .... errors are defined (TBD).
If the set of nodes that are synchronizing their data does not form a
tree, it is possible that the same information arrives through
several other nodes. This is unavoidable, but generally only imposes
a modest overhead. (It would be possible to create a spanning tree
in the same fashion as IP multicast, but the complexity does not seem
warranted, giving the relatively low volume of data.)
An example is shown in Figure 1. In the example, the last mapping,
with source lost:nj.us.example and mapping ID 'englewood', is being
removed.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<pushMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync">
<mappings>
<mapping sourceId="lost:leonia.nj.us.example"
version="1" lastUpdated="2006-11-26T01:00:00Z"
timeToLive="2007-12-26T01:00:00Z">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
Leonia Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary
profile="urn:ietf:params:lost:location-profile:basic-civic">
<civicAddress
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<country>US</country>
<A1>NJ</A1>
<A3>Leonia</A3>
<PC>07605</PC>
</civicAddress>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:police@leonianj.example.org</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<mapping
expires="2007-01-01T01:44:33Z"
lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z"
source="lost:authoritative.example"
sourceId="abc123" version="1">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
New York City Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
<p2:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
<p2:exterior>
<p2:LinearRing>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
</p2:LinearRing>
</p2:exterior>
</p2:Polygon>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:nypd@example.com</uri>
<uri>xmpp:nypd@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
<mapping source="lost:nj.us.example" sourceId="englewood"/>
</mappings>
</pushMappingsRequest>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<pushMappingsResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync" />
</pushMappingsResponse>
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
Figure 1: Example pushMappingsRequest and pushMappingsResponse
4. Synchronizing Mapping Stores via <getMappingsRequest> and
<getMappingsResponse>
While the <pushMappingsRequest> request allows new mappings to
propagate, it does not allow a newly-arriving node to acquire all
mappings maintained by another node. Thus, <getMappingsRequest> and
<getMappingsResponse> are used to synchronize two mapping stores. A
LoST node wanting to synchronize its mapping store with another node
issues a <getMappingsRequest>, containing an enumeration of the
current mapping source identifiers, tags and versions. The recipient
of the request compares that list to its own list of mappings. It
then returns an unordered set of mappings that are more recent than
the ones identified in the <getMappingsRequest>. It also returns any
mappings that it knows about that are not contained in the list at
all. Thus, a querier can get the complete listing of mappings by
omitting 'm' elements altogether.
An example request and response is shown in Figure 2
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync">
<m sourceId="lost:authoritative.example"
sourceId="abc123" version="1" />
</getMappingsRequest>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync"
xmlns:p2="http://www.opengis.net/gml">
<mappings>
<mapping
expires="2007-01-26T01:44:33Z"
lastUpdated="2006-11-26T01:00:00Z"
source="lost:authoritative.example"
sourceId="abc123" version="2">
<displayName xml:lang="en">
New York City Police Department
</displayName>
<service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
<serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
<p2:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
<p2:exterior>
<p2:LinearRing>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4194</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.555 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4264</p2:pos>
<p2:pos>37.775 -122.4194</p2:pos>
</p2:LinearRing>
</p2:exterior>
</p2:Polygon>
</serviceBoundary>
<uri>sip:nypd@ny.example.com</uri>
<uri>xmpp:nypd@example.com</uri>
<serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
</mapping>
</mappings>
</getMappingsResponse>
Figure 2: Example getMappingsRequest and getMappingsResponse
5. Security Considerations
The LoST security considerations are discussed in [2]. The
operations described in this document involve mutually-trusting LoST
nodes. These nodes need to authenticate each other, using mechanisms
such as HTTP Digest, HTTP Basic over TLS or TLS client and server
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
certificates. Nodes implementing LoST MUST implement HTTP Basic
authentication over TLS and MAY implement other authentication
mechanisms.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. LoST Synchronization Namespace Registration
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync
Registrant Contact: IETF ECRIT Working Group, Henning Schulzrinne
(hgs@cs.columbia.edu).
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>LoST Synchronization Namespace</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for LoST server synchronization</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync</h2>
<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX
[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:
Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
specification.]</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
7. Acknowledgments
Your name here.
8. RelaxNG
TBD
9. References
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol",
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02 (work in progress), October 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[3] Schulzrinne, H., "Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and
Framework", draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-00 (work in progress),
August 2006.
Author's Address
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LoST Sync November 2006
Full 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.
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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Schulzrinne Expires May 30, 2007 [Page 10]