Skip to main content

GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Requirements
RFC 5687

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from geopriv-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2010-03-10
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-10
10 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5687' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-10
10 (System) RFC published
2009-09-17
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-09-17
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-09-17
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-09-17
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-09-17
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-09-17
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-09-17
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2009-08-23
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2009-07-13
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-07-13
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-10.txt
2009-07-03
10 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-07-02
2009-07-02
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-07-01
10 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-07-01
10 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ralph Droms
2009-07-01
10 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
There are some typo/grammar issues with the Note blocks added to the start of Sections 4 and 5 that need to be corrected …
[Ballot comment]
There are some typo/grammar issues with the Note blocks added to the start of Sections 4 and 5 that need to be corrected before publication.
2009-07-01
10 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-07-01
10 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-07-01
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-07-01
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot comment]
There are plenty of acronyms not expanded at the first occurence: USB, DSL, PPoE, etc.
2009-07-01
10 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
1. Since this document was written IEEE 802.1AB was approved and deployed. I suggest the following change in Section 5:

OLD:

Switch/Port Number: …
[Ballot discuss]
1. Since this document was written IEEE 802.1AB was approved and deployed. I suggest the following change in Section 5:

OLD:

Switch/Port Number:

      This identifier is available only in certain networks, such as
      enterprise networks, typically available via proprietary protocols
      like CDP or, in the future, 802.1ab.

NEW:

Ethernet Switch (Bridge)/Port Number:

      This identifier is available only in certain networks, such as
      enterprise networks, typically available via the IEEE 802.1AB
      protocol [xx] or proprietary protocols like the Cisco Discovery
      Protocol (CDP) [yy]

Adding informative references would also be nice for IEEE 802.1AB and CDP would also be useful.

[xx] IEEE 802.1AB-2005 IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery - http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AB-2005.pdf

Somebody should be able to provide a reference to CDP.

2. The four requirements in the Security Considerations section deserve to be written with 2119 capitalized MUST.
2009-07-01
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-06-30
10 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-06-29
10 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-06-25
10 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In Section 6:

  The following requirements and assumptions have been identified:

  Requirement L7-1: Identifier Choice

      The L7 LCP …
[Ballot comment]
In Section 6:

  The following requirements and assumptions have been identified:

  Requirement L7-1: Identifier Choice

      The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST
      define an identifier that is mandatory to implement.

Did you mean "identifier type" here?

      Regarding
      the latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is
      from the same realm as the one for which the location information
      service maintains identifier to location mapping.
2009-06-25
10 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-06-24
10 Cullen Jennings State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-24
10 Cullen Jennings Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-07-02 by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-24
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings
2009-06-24
10 Cullen Jennings Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-24
10 Cullen Jennings Created "Approve" ballot
2009-06-09
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-06-05
10 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-05-26
10 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-05-26
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-05-24
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2009-05-24
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2009-05-22
10 Cullen Jennings Note field has been cleared by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-22
10 Cullen Jennings Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-22
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-05-22
10 (System) Last call text was added
2009-05-22
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-05-22
10 Cullen Jennings State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Cullen Jennings
2009-02-21
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-02-21
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-09.txt
2009-01-24
10 Cullen Jennings State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::External Party by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
10 Cullen Jennings [Note]: 'Waiting for reply for email sent Nov 14,2008' added by Cullen Jennings
2009-01-24
10 Cullen Jennings [Note]: 'Waiting for reply for email sent Nov 14,2008<br><br>' added by Cullen Jennings
2008-11-14
10 Cullen Jennings State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings
2008-11-13
10 Cullen Jennings State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings
2008-09-26
10 Cindy Morgan
Technical Summary

This document describes the problems posed by a need for a "layer-
seven" location configuration protocol (L7LCP) in IP networks, and
states requirements …
Technical Summary

This document describes the problems posed by a need for a "layer-
seven" location configuration protocol (L7LCP) in IP networks, and
states requirements for such a protocol. Location configuration, in
this document, is the process by which IP endpoints acquire their own
location from a network to which they are connected. A configuration
protocol that operates at layer 7 (i.e., the application layer) is
needed in order to be deployable in many different types of access
networks without major modification to lower-layer devices in the
network. The distribution of location information is a privacy-
sensitive task. This document describes the privacy risks introduced
by design choices in an L7LCP and how these risks can be mitigated.

WG Summary

The WG reached consensus to advance this document. It was produced by
an L7LCP design team and went through several revisions in response to
WG comments. Initial versions of the document were much broader in
scope, and the WG agreed that many sections (e.g., sections on
location URIs and on VPN considerations) could be removed from the
document without affecting the main content that relates specifically
to the development of an L7LCP. There is broad consensus that the
current, more tightly-focused document is ready to advance.

Document Quality

The document was reviewed in depth by the GEOPRIV Working Group. The
document is the product of an in-depth discussion of location
configuration issues by the L7LCP design team, which led to an initial
draft that addressed a wide variety of location-relevant concerns.
Several of these concerns sparked significant controversy and were not
directly relevant to an L7LCP. As a result, these issues have been
spun off into separate documents, and the remaining core L7LCP
document now constitutes a focused description of L7LCP requirements.

Personnel

The WG Chair is Robert Sparks, the Proto Shepherd is Richard Barnes
and the Responsible
Area Director is Cullen Jennings.

------- The proto writeup follows. --------


(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The shepherd is Richard Barnes. I have personally reviewed it and
believe it is ready for forwarding.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

It has been reviewed carefully by key WG members, as well as by key
members of the ECRIT working group, who are to be one of the primary
consumers of the protocol to be developed. I do not have concerns.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

This document might benefit from further review with respect to
security concerns. In the final revision to this document, detailed
security concerns that were deemed to be not specific to the L7LCP
problem were moved to a separate document that has not yet been
adopted by the WG. I believe that the document addresses LCP-specific
security and privacy issues adequately in the main body of the text,
but an additional SECDIR review might be useful to ensure that
security concerns are thoroughly addressed.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.

I do not have any specific concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is solid WG consensus. There is broad agreement that a strong
need exists for an L7LCP, and that this document adequately captures
that problem and relevant requirements.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire will
be entered into the ID Tracker.)

Nothing.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies
all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The document has passed this checklist with minor exceptions around
the 2616 boilerplate and some stale references.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are split. While the document does contain references
to documents that are not ready for advancement, all such references
are informative, not normative.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions,
are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are
the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates
a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of
the registry and an allocation procedure for future
registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new
registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert
Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area
Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during
the IESG Evaluation?

This document does not require actions by IANA.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document
that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
automated checker?

There is no such formal language used in this document.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents.

See first of message
2008-09-26
10 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-06-29
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08.txt
2008-03-29
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt
2007-11-19
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-06.txt
2007-09-12
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-05.txt
2007-08-29
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-04.txt
2007-07-12
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-03.txt
2007-04-30
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-02.txt
2007-04-09
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-01.txt
2007-01-08
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt