[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05                                             
GEOPRIV                                                       M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                           J. Winterbottom
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Andrew
Expires: August 26, 2007                               February 22, 2007


                  A BEEP Binding for the HELD Protocol
                 draft-thomson-geopriv-held-beep-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 August 26, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).














Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


Abstract

   A BEEP binding is described for HELD.  This binding is more suitable
   than the basic HTTP binding in scenarios where multiple messages are
   sent between the same two parties.  Discovery methods relating to
   this binding are described.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The HELD BEEP Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Channel Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Message Exchange Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  LIS Discovery and Authentication for BEEP  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  S-NAPTR Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  BEEP Profile Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  URN sun-namespace registration for
           'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep' . . . . . . . .  9
     5.3.  Registration of a LIS Application Protocol Tag for
           HELD over BEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Alternative Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15



















Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


1.  Introduction

   The HTTP binding for HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
   provides a basis for the protocol, which does not encumber
   implementations with a complex protocol stack.  However, some
   applications require that a requester make multiple requests in
   parallel to a Location Information Server (LIS).  This is especially
   important when HELD identity extensions
   [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions] are applied.  Use
   cases for identity extensions can be found in [NENA.08-505].

   The HTTP binding is not suitable in volume scenarios because HTTP
   suffers from head-of-queue blocking.  This prevents multiple requests
   from being processed in parallel.  In order to achieve higher
   throughput, the requester must establish multiple TCP connections in
   parallel.  Now, while this could be considered a feature of HTTP,
   this causes HTTP to be unsuitable for applications where multiple
   parallel requests are expected.

   BEEP [RFC3080] provides a framing scheme that allows for parallel
   requests.  BEEP uses MIME [RFC2045] for its messages, which means
   that no significant modifications are required to carry HELD
   messages.  This document describes a BEEP profile for HELD.

1.1.  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].






















Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


2.  The HELD BEEP Profile

   The BEEP profile for HELD is identified as:

      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep

   in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation.

   The HELD channel is a simple continuous channel that does not require
   any state information.  Requests and their respective responses are
   always in the request-response form ("MSG"/"RPY").

2.1.  Channel Initialization

   The HELD profile is started with a single "profile" request.  No
   additional parameters are required.  When initiating a channel the
   "profile" element MUST be empty, as shown in the example below.

     <start number="1" serverName="lis.example.com">
       <profile uri="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep"/>
     </start>

   The "serverName" attribute on the "start" message serves the same
   purpose as the HTTP [RFC2616] "Host" header in information the server
   of the name it is known by.

   Similarly, the response to channel initialization MUST be empty.

     <profile uri="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep"/>

2.2.  Message Exchange Pattern

   The BEEP binding for HELD requires only the "MSG"/"RPY" message
   exchange.  Each "MSG" frame contains a request, which may be either a
   "locationRequest", "createContext" or "updateContext".  Each "RPY"
   frame includes a response, either a PIDF-LO (i.e. "presence"), or a
   "contextResponse".














Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


   The following exchange demonstrates how a simple HELD location
   request and response are encapsulated.  The "C:" and "S:" prefixes on
   lines are used in the convention of [RFC3080].

   C: MSG 1 7 . 544 125
   C: Content-Type: application/held+xml
   C:
   C: <?xml version="1.0"?>
   C: <locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"/>
   C: END
   S: RPY 1 7 . 1902 695
   S: Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
   S:
   S: <?xml version="1.0"?>
   S: <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
   S:           entity="pres:3650n87934c@lis.example.com">
   S:
   S:   <!-- PIDF-LO contents not shown -->
   S:
   S: </presence>
   S: END

2.3.  Error Handling

   The HELD BEEP binding does not use the BEEP "ERR" message to indicate
   errors at the HELD protocol level.  Errors in handling HELD Requests
   are indicated to the requester in a "RPY" message.

   Errors in the BEEP message that are unrelated to the HELD protocol,
   such as MIME formatting problems, are indicated using the BEEP "ERR"
   message.




















Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


3.  LIS Discovery and Authentication for BEEP

   This profile is most suited to situations where a client and LIS
   exchange a large number of requests over a prolonged period.  It is
   anticipated that the client and LIS are known to each other.

   Based on this assumption, it is reasonable for the LIS and its
   clients to have pre-existing configuration that makes discovery
   unnecessary.  In addition, authentication details and methods can be
   pre-configured on both nodes.

   There is no well known port for this protocol binding.

3.1.  Authentication

   Regardless of the method used to determine the address of the LIS, a
   client MUST authenticate the LIS.  This prevents any LIS spoofing
   attacks that could be used to acquire information about the client
   (and in turn, their clients).

   For persistent connections, it is RECOMMENDED that the LIS also
   authenticate clients.  Some authorization decision is likely to be
   necessary in order for a client to initiate a large volume of
   requests, which could represent significant load on a LIS.

   This document does not mandate any specific authentication method;
   however, since TLS MUST be implemented, the mandatory methods in
   [RFC4346] are assumed to be present.  Alternative authentication
   methods can be negotiated between the LIS and its clients.

3.2.  S-NAPTR Discovery

   In discovering a BEEP-enabled LIS, the client needs to discover the
   IP address of the LIS host and the TCP port that the LIS service
   uses.  Unlike in [I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery], where a URI is
   required, Straightforward NAPTR (S-NAPTR) [RFC3958] is all that is
   necessary in this case.  Therefore, for this Dynamic Delegation
   Discovery Service (DDDS), a terminal "s" flag is required.

   This document registers a new protocol tag for a BEEP enabled LIS.
   The "HELD+BEEP" Application Protocol tag.  The terminal record for
   this application protocol type is an SRV record [RFC2782].  Domain
   discovery can be applied in the same way as described in
   [I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery].







Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


   The following example shows the BEEP and HTTP bindings for the
   "example.com" LIS.  This resolves to port 8773 of the host at
   "lis.example.com":

      example.com.
      ;;       order pref flags
      IN NAPTR 100   10   "u"  "LIS:HELD" (        ; service
          "!*.!https://lis.example.com/!"          ; regex
          .                                        ; replacement
          )
      IN NAPTR 100   10   "s"  "LIS:HELD+BEEP" (   ; service
          ""                                       ; regex
          lis.example.com.                         ; replacement
          )

      lis.example.com.
      ;;       order pref port host
      IN SRV   100   10   8773 lis.example.com.

































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


4.  Security Considerations

   TLS [RFC4346] SHOULD be used for HELD over BEEP unless
   confidentiality, message integrity and authentication are assured
   through other means (e.g. dedicated media).  It is RECOMMENDED that
   BEEP peers establish a TLS connection immediately, rather than
   relying on the TLS tuning profile in BEEP.

   Discovery using DDDS, is subject to the same limitations and
   considerations outlined in [I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery].  This
   is mitigated by the scenarios in which this binding is appropriate,
   namely where pre-arranged relationships between LIS and client.







































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  BEEP Profile Registration

   This section outlines the HELD BEEP binding in the form described in
   [RFC3080].

   Profile Identification:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep

   Messages exchanged during Channel Creation:  none

   Messages starting one-to-one exchanges:  "locationRequest",
      "createContext" and "updateContext" (from the
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" namespace)

   Messages in positive replies:  "contextResponse" (from the
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" namespace), "presence" (from
      the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf" namespace)

   Messages in negative replies:  "error" (from the
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" namespace)

   Messages in one-to-many exchanges:  none

   Message Syntax:  c.f., HELD
      [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery], PIDF [RFC3863], PIDF-LO
      [RFC4119]

   Message Semantics:  c.f., HELD
      [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]

   Contact Information:  c.f., the "Author's Address" section of this
      document

5.2.  URN sun-namespace registration for
      'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep'

   This section registers a new XML namespace,
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep", as per the guidelines in
   [RFC3688].

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep

      Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
      (geopriv@ietf.org), Martin Thomson (martin.thomson@andrew.com).

      XML:




Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


           BEGIN
             <?xml version="1.0"?>
             <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
               "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
             <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
               <head>
                 <title>HELD BEEP Binding</title>
               </head>
               <body>
                 <h1>Namespace for HELD BEEP Binding Profile</h1>
                 <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep</h2>
   [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
       with the RFC number for this specification.]]
                 <p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
               </body>
             </html>
           END

5.3.  Registration of a LIS Application Protocol Tag for HELD over BEEP

   This section registers a new S-NAPTR Application Protocol tag for the
   BEEP binding of the HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
   protocol, as mandated by [RFC3958].

   Application Service Tag:  HELD+BEEP

   Intended Usage:  Identifies the HELD protocol over BEEP

   Applicable Service Tag(s):  LIS

   Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s):  S

   Defining Publication:  RFCXXXX

   Related Publications:  HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]

   Contact Information:  The authors of this document

   Author/Change Controller:  The IESG












Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


6.  Alternative Solutions

   The BEEP binding for SOAP [RFC4227] was used as a reference in the
   construction of this document and was considered as a possible
   alternative to the solution described.  However, the state associated
   with each channel (namely the path to the selected service or the
   boot state) is unnecessary, since the LIS is a single service.  The
   state also hinders any possible use of this protocol in relation with
   location URIs.  The SOAP envelope is also unnecessary for this
   protocol.  Note that this does not preclude the use of a separate
   SOAP+BEEP binding for HELD.








































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC3080]  Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
              RFC 3080, March 2001.

   [RFC3863]  Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr,
              W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format
              (PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 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.

   [RFC4119]  Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
              Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
              Winterbottom, J., "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
              draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-04 (work in
              progress), October 2006.

   [I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery]
              Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "LIS Discovery",
              draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-00 (work in progress),
              February 2007.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.




Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.

   [RFC4227]  O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object
              Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange
              Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, January 2006.

   [I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions]
              Winterbottom, J. and M. Thomson, "HELD End-Point identity
              Extensions",
              draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00
              (work in progress), October 2006.

   [NENA.08-505]
              NENA, "NENA Recommended Method(s) for Location
              Determination to Support IP-Based Emergency Services",
              Technical Information Document 08-505, Issue 1,
              December 2006,
              <http://www.nena.org/media/files/08-505_20061221.pdf>.
































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


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 26, 2007               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               HELD over BEEP                February 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 26, 2007               [Page 15]