[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-lost-sync) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RFC 6739

ECRIT                                                     H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft                                       Columbia University
Intended status: Experimental                              H. Tschofenig
Expires: July 16, 2012                            Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                        January 13, 2012


  Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based
                Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements
                   draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16.txt

Abstract

   The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based
   protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic
   location information to service URIs and service boundaries.  In
   particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate
   Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.

   The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for
   encapsulating information about service boundaries is defined in the
   LoST protocol specification and circumscribes the region within which
   all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource Identifier
   (URI) or set of URIs for a given service.

   This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings
   between two nodes.  This mechanism is designed for the exchange of
   authoritative <mapping> elements between two entities.  Exchanging
   cached <mapping> elements, i.e. non-authoritative elements, is
   possible but not envisioned.  In any case, this document can also be
   used without the LoST protocol even though the format of the
   <mapping> element is re-used from the LoST specification.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."




Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



































Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> /
       <getMappingsResponse> Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.1.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination  . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.2.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.3.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Pushing Mappings via <pushMappings> and
       <pushMappingsResponse> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.1.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination  . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  RelaxNG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     9.1.  Content-type registration for
           'application/lostsync+xml' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     9.2.  LoST Sync Relax NG Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.3.  LoST Synchronization Namespace Registration  . . . . . . . 26
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29























Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


1.  Introduction

   The LoST (Location-to-Service Translation) protocol [RFC5222] maps
   service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to
   service URIs.  The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used
   for encapsulating information about service boundaries is defined in
   the LoST protocol specification and circumscribes the region within
   which all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource
   Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a given service.

   This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative
   <mapping> elements between two entities (the LoST Sync source and the
   LoST Sync destination).

   The LoST Sync mechanism can, for example, be used in the LoST
   architecture, as specified in the [RFC5582].  There, LoST servers act
   in different roles that cooperate to provide an ubiquitous, globally
   scalable and resilient mapping service.  In the LoST mapping
   architecture, LoST servers can peer, i.e., have an on-going data
   exchange relationship.  Peering relationships are set up manually,
   based on local policies.  A LoST server may peer with any number of
   other LoST servers.  Forest guides peer with other forest guides;
   authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides and other
   authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above or below
   them in the tree.  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 for a specific service.

   Consider a hypothetical deployent of LoST in two countries, for
   example Austria and Finland.  Austria, in our example, runs three
   authoritative mapping servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna'
   whereby the former two cover the entire country expect for Vienna,
   which is covered by a separate LoST server.  There may be other
   caching LoST servers run by ISPs, universities, and VSPs but they are
   not relevant for this illustration.  Finland, on the other hand,
   decided to only deploy a single LoST server that also acts as a
   Forest Guide.  For this simplistic illustration we assume that only
   one service is available, namely 'urn:service:sos' since otherwise
   the number of stored mappings would have to be multiplied by the
   number of used services.

   Figure 1 shows the example deployment.








Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


                      +---LoST-Sync-->\\     //<--LoST-Sync----+
                      |                 -----                  |
                      |                                        |
                      \/                                       \/
                    -----                                     -----
                  //     \\                                 //     \\
                 /         \                               /         \
                |  Forest   |                             |   Forest  |
                |  Guide    |                             |   Guide   |
                |  Austria  |                             |   Finland
                 \         /                               \         /
       +--------->\\     //<--------+                       \\     //
       |            -----           |                         -----
       |             /\             |                           |
     LoST            |             LoST                     //------\\
     Sync           LoST           Sync                    |Co-Located|
       |            Sync            |                      |   LoST   |
       \/            |              \/                     | Server   |
    //----\\         \/          //----\\                   \\------//
   |  LoST  |     //----\\      |  LoST  |
   | Server |    |  LoST  |     | Server |
   | (East) |    | Server |     |(Vienna)|
    \\----//     | (West) |      \\----//
                  \\----//

                     Figure 1: LoST Deployment Example

   The configuration of these nodes would therefore be as follows:

   Forest Guide Austria:  This forest guide would contain mappings for
      the three authoritative mapping servers (East, West and Vienna)
      describing what area they are responsible for.  Note that each
      mapping would contain a service URN and these mappings point to
      LoST servers rather than to PSAPs or ESRPs.

   LoST Server 'East':  This LoST server would contain all the mappings
      to PSAPs covering one half of the country.

      Additionally, the LoST server aggregates all the information it
      has and provides an abstracted view towards the Forest Guide
      indicating that it is responsible for a certain area (for a given
      service, and for a given location profile).  Such a mapping could
      have the following structure:








Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <mapping
       xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
       xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
       expires="2009-01-01T01:44:33Z"
       lastUpdated="2009-12-01T01:00:00Z"
       source="east-austria.lost-example.com"
       sourceId="e8b05a41d8d1415b80f2cdbb96ccf109">
       <displayName xml:lang="en">LoST Server 'East'</displayName>
       <service>urn:service:sos</service>
       <serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
           <gml:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
               <gml:exterior>
                   <gml:LinearRing>
                       <gml:pos> ... </gml:pos>
                       ..... list of coordinates for
                       boundary of LoST server 'East'
                       <gml:pos> ... </gml:pos>
                   </gml:LinearRing>
               </gml:exterior>
           </gml:Polygon>
       </serviceBoundary>
       <uri/>
   </mapping>

              Figure 2: Forest Guide Austria Mapping XML Snippet

      Note that the XML code snippet in Figure 2 serves illustrative
      purposes only and does not validate.  As it can be seen in this
      example the <uri> element is absent and the 'source' attribute
      identifies the LoST server, namely "east-austria.lost-
      example.com".

      The above-shown mapping is what is the LoST server "east-
      austria.lost-example.com" provides to the Austrian Forest Guide.

   LoST Server 'West':  This LoST server would contain all the mappings
      to PSAPs covering the other half of the country.

   LoST Server 'Vienna':  This LoST server would contain all the
      mappings to PSAPs in the area of Vienna.

   Forest Guide Finland:  In our example we assume that Finland would
      deploy a single ESRP for the entire country as their IP-based
      emergency services solution.  There is only a single LoST server
      and it is co-located with the Forest Guide, as shown in Figure 1.
      The mapping data this FG would distribute via LoST sync is shown
      in Figure 3.



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <mapping xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
       expires="2007-01-01T01:44:33Z"
       lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z"
       source="finland.lost-example.com"
       sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66">
       <displayName xml:lang="en">Finland ESRP</displayName>
       <service>urn:service:sos</service>
       <serviceBoundary profile="civic">
           <civicAddress
               xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
               <country>FI</country>
           </civicAddress>
       </serviceBoundary>
       <uri/>
   </mapping>

                Figure 3: Forest Guide Finland Mapping Example

      An example mapping stored at the co-located LoST server is shown
      in Figure 4.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <mapping xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
       expires="2007-01-01T01:44:33Z"
       lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z"
       source="finland.lost-example.com"
       sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66">
       <displayName xml:lang="en">Finland ESRP</displayName>
       <service>urn:service:sos</service>
       <serviceBoundary profile="civic">
           <civicAddress
               xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
               <country>FI</country>
           </civicAddress>
       </serviceBoundary>
       <uri>sip:esrp@finland-example.com</uri>
       <uri>xmpp:esrp@finland-example.com</uri>
       <serviceNumber>112</serviceNumber>
   </mapping>

       Figure 4: Forest Guide Finland / Co-Located LoST Server Mapping
                                   Example

   The LoST sync mechanism described in this document could be run
   between the two Forest Guides.  Thereby, the three mappings stored in
   the Austria FG are sent to the FG Finland and a single mapping in the
   FG Finland is sent to the FG Austria.  Additionally, the three



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   Austrian LoST servers could utilize LoST sync to inform the Austrian
   FG about their boundaries.  These three authoritative mapping servers
   in Austria would be responsible to maintain their own mapping
   information.  Since the amount of data being exchanged is small and
   the expected rate of change is low the nodes are configured to always
   exchange all their mapping information whenever a change happens.

   This document defines two types of exchanges and those are best
   described by the exchange between two nodes as shown in Figure 5 and
   Figure 6.  The protocol exchange always runs between a LoST Sync
   source and a LoST Sync destination.  Node A in the examples of
   Figure 5 and Figure 6 has mappings that Node B is going to retrieve.
   Node A acts as the source for the data and Node B is the destination.

   The <getMappingsRequest> request allows a LoST Sync source to request
   mappings from a LoST Sync destination.

      +---------+                   +---------+
      | Node B  |                   | Node A  |
      | acting  |                   | acting  |
      | as      |                   | as      |
      | LoST    |                   | LoST    |
      | Sync    |                   | Sync    |
      | Dest.   |                   | Source  |
      +---------+                   +---------+
          |                              |
          |                              |
          |                              |
          | <getMappingsRequest>         |
          |----------------------------->|
          |                              |
          | <getMappingsResponse>        |
          |<-----------------------------|
          |                              |
          |                              |
          |                              |

    Figure 5: Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> Message

   Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 5 Node B is issuing
   the first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client and Node A
   plays the role of the HTTPS server.

   The <pushMappingsRequest> exchange allows a LoST Sync source to push
   mappings to LoST Sync destination.  The assumption is being made that
   Node A and B have previously been configured in a way that they push
   mappings in such a fashion and that Node A maintains state about the
   mappings have to be pushed to Node B. No subscribe mechanism is



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   defined in this document that would allow Node B to tell Node A about
   what mappings it is interested nor a mechanism for learning to which
   entities mappings have to be pushed.

       +---------+                   +---------+
       | Node A  |                   | Node B  |
       | acting  |                   | acting  |
       | as      |                   | as      |
       | LoST    |                   | LoST    |
       | Sync    |                   | Sync    |
       | Source  |                   | Dest.   |
       +---------+                   +---------+
           |                              |
           |                              |
           |                              |
           | <pushMappingsRequest>        |
           |----------------------------->|
           |                              |
           | <pushMappingsResponse>       |
           |<-----------------------------|
           |                              |
           |                              |
           |                              |

      Figure 6: Pushing Mappings with a <pushMappingsRequest> Message

   Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 6 Node A issuing the
   first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client and Node B plays
   the role of the HTTPS server.






















Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


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 [RFC2119].

   This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping
   architecture document [RFC5582], such as 'coverage region', 'forest
   guide', 'mapping', 'authoritative mapping server', etc..

   Throughout this document we use the term LoST Sync source and LoST
   Sync destination to denote the protocol end points of the exchange.
   The protocol is referred as LoST Sync within the text.






































Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


3.  Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> /
    <getMappingsResponse> Exchange

3.1.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination

   A LoST Sync destination has two ways to retrieve mapping elements
   from a LoST Sync source.

   1.  A mechanisms that is suitable when no mappings are available on
       the LoST Sync destination is to submit an empty
       <getMappingsRequest> message, as shown in Figure 7.  The intent
       by the LoST Sync destination thereby is to retrieve all mappings
       from the LoST Sync source.  Note that the request does not
       propagate further to other nodes.

   2.  In case a LoST Sync destination node has already obtained
       mappings in previous exchanges then it may want to check whether
       these mappings have been updated in the meanwhile.  The policy
       when to poll for updated mapping information is outside the scope
       of this document.  The <getMappingsRequest> message with one or
       multiple <exists> child element(s) allows to reduce the number of
       returned mappings to those that have been updated and also to
       those that are missing.

   In response to the <getMappingsRequest> message the LoST Sync
   destination waits for the <getMappingsResponse> message.  In case of
   a successful response the LoST Sync destination stores the received
   mappings and determines which mappings to update.

3.2.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Source

   When a LoST Sync source receives an empty <getMappingsRequest>
   message then all locally available mappings MUST be returned.

   When a LoST Sync source receives a <getMappingsRequest> message with
   one or multiple <exists> child element(s) then it MUST consult with
   the local mapping database to determine whether any of the mappings
   of the client is stale and whether there are mappings locally that
   the client does not yet have.  The former can be determined by
   finding mappings corresponding to the 'source' and 'sourceID'
   attribut where a mapping with a more recent lastUpdated date exists.

   Processing a <getMappingsRequest> message MAY lead to a successful
   response in the form of a <getMappingsResponse> or an <errors>
   message.  Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>,
   <serverTimeout> errors, defined in [RFC5222], are utilized by this
   specification.  Neither the <redirect> nor the <warnings> messages
   are reused by this message.



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


3.3.  Examples

   The first example shows an empty <getMappingsRequest> message that
   would retrieve all locally stored mappings at the LoST Sync source.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/>

          Figure 7: Example of empty <getMappingsRequest> message

   A further example request is shown in Figure 8 and the corresponding
   response is depicted in Figure 9.  In this example the
   <getMappingsRequest> element contains information about the mapping
   that is locally available to the client inside the <mapping-
   fingerprint> element (with source="authoritative.bar.example",
   sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66", and lastUpdated="2006-
   11-01T01:00:00Z").  The query asks for mappings that are more recent
   than the available one as well as any missing mapping.


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">
       <exists>
           <mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example"
           sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
           lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z">
           </mapping-fingerprint>
       </exists>
   </getMappingsRequest>


              Figure 8: Example <getMappingsRequest> Message

   The response to the above request is shown in Figure 9.  A more
   recent mapping was available with the identification of
   source="authoritative.bar.example" and
   sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66".  Only one mapping that
   matched source="authoritative.foo.example" was found and returned.


  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <sync:getMappingsResponse
      xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
      xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml">

          <mapping source="authoritative.bar.example"
              sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


              lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"
              expires="2009-12-26T01:00:00Z">
              <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
  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@leonianj2.example.org</uri>
              <serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
          </mapping>

          <mapping expires="2009-01-01T01:44:33Z"
              lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
              source="authoritative.foo.example"
              sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111">
              <displayName xml:lang="en">New York City Police Department
              </displayName>
              <service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
              <serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
                  <gml:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
                      <gml:exterior>
                          <gml:LinearRing>
                              <gml:pos>37.775 -122.4194</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.555 -122.4194</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.555 -122.4264</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.775 -122.4264</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.775 -122.4194</gml:pos>
                          </gml:LinearRing>
                      </gml:exterior>
                  </gml:Polygon>
              </serviceBoundary>
              <uri>sip:nypd@example.com</uri>
              <uri>xmpp:nypd@example.com</uri>
              <serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
          </mapping>

  </sync:getMappingsResponse>

              Figure 9: Example <getMappingsResponse> Message




Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


4.  Pushing Mappings via <pushMappings> and <pushMappingsResponse>

4.1.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Source

   When a LoST Sync source obtains new information that is of interest
   to its peers, it may push the new mappings to its peers.
   Configuration settings at both peers decide whether this
   functionality is used and what mappings are pushed to which other
   peers.  New mappings may arrive through various means, such as a
   manual addition to the local mapping database, or through the
   interaction with other entities.  Deleting mappings may also trigger
   a protocol interaction.

   The LoST Sync source SHOULD keep track to which LoST Sync destination
   it has pushed mapping elements.  If it does not keep state
   information then it always has to push the complete data set.  As
   discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC5222], mapping elements are
   identified by the 'source', 'sourceID' and 'lastUpdated' attributes.
   A mapping is considered the same if these three attributes match.  It
   is RECOMMENDED not to push the same information to the same peer more
   than once.

   A <pushMappings> request sent by a LoST Sync source MUST containing
   one or more <mapping> elements.

   To delete a mapping, the content of the mapping is left empty, i.e.
   the <mapping> element only contains the 'source', 'sourceID',
   'lastUpdated', and 'expires" attribute.  Figure 10 shows an example
   request where the mapping with the source="nj.us.example",
   sourceId="123", lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z", expires="2008-11-
   01T01:00:00Z" is requested to be deleted.  Note that the 'expires'
   attribute is required per schema definition but will be ignored in
   processing the request on the receiving side.  A sync source may want
   to delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but has to
   remember which peers it has distributed this update to unless it has
   other ways to ensure that databases do not get out of sync.

4.2.  Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination

   When a LoST Sync destination receives a <pushMappingsRequest> message
   then the cache with the existing mappings is inspected to determine
   whether the received mapping should lead to an update of an already
   existing mapping, should create a new mapping in the cache, or should
   be discarded.

   A newly received mapping MUST update an existing one having the same
   'source' and 'sourceId' and a more recent time in 'lastUpdated'.




Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   If the received mapping does not match with any existing mapping
   based on the 'source' and 'sourceId' then it MUST be added to the
   local cache as an independent mapping.

   If a <pushMappingsRequest> message with an empty <mapping> element is
   received then a corresponding mapping has to be determined based on
   the 'source', and the 'sourceID'.

   If no mapping can be identified then an <errors> response MUST be
   returned that contains the <notDeleted> child element.  The
   <notDeleted> element MAY contain a 'message' attribute with an error
   description used for debugging purposes.  The <notDeleted> element
   MUST contain the <mapping> element(s) that caused the error.

   The response to a <pushMappingsRequest> request is a
   <pushMappingsResponse> message.  With this specification, a
   successful response message returns no additional elements, whereas
   an <errors> response is returned in the response message, if the
   request failed.  Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>
   or <serverTimeout> errors defined in Section 13.1 of [RFC5222], are
   used.  The <redirect> and <warnings> messages are not used for this
   query/response.

   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, given the relatively low volume of data.)

4.3.  Example

   An example is shown in Figure 10.  Image a LoST node that obtained
   two new mappings identified as follows:

   o

   source="authoritative.example"
   sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
   lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"

   o

   source="authoritative.example"
   sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111"
   lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"

   These two mappings have to be added to the peer's mapping database.



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   Additionally, the following mapping has to be deleted:

   o  source="nj.us.example" sourceId="123" lastUpdated="2008-11-
      01T01:00:00Z"


  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <sync:pushMappings
      xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
      xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml">

          <mapping source="authoritative.example"
              sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
              lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"
              expires="2009-12-26T01:00:00Z">
              <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
       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="2009-01-01T01:44:33Z"
              lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
              source="authoritative.example"
              sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111">
              <displayName xml:lang="en">New York City Police Department
              </displayName>
              <service>urn:service:sos.police</service>
              <serviceBoundary profile="geodetic-2d">
                  <gml:Polygon srsName="urn:ogc:def::crs:EPSG::4326">
                      <gml:exterior>
                          <gml:LinearRing>
                              <gml:pos>37.775 -122.4194</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.555 -122.4194</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.555 -122.4264</gml:pos>
                              <gml:pos>37.775 -122.4264</gml:pos>



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


                              <gml:pos>37.775 -122.4194</gml:pos>
                          </gml:LinearRing>
                      </gml:exterior>
                  </gml:Polygon>
              </serviceBoundary>
              <uri>sip:nypd@example.com</uri>
              <uri>xmpp:nypd@example.com</uri>
              <serviceNumber>911</serviceNumber>
          </mapping>

          <mapping source="nj.us.example"
              sourceId="123"
              lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
              expires="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"/>

  </sync:pushMappings>

             Figure 10: Example <pushMappingsRequest> Message

   In response, the peer performs the necessary operation and updates
   its mapping database.  In particular, it will check whether the other
   peer is authorized to perform the update and whether the elements and
   attributes contain values that it understands.  In our example, a
   positive response is returned as shown in Figure 11.


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <pushMappingsResponse xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1" />

                 Figure 11: Example <pushMappingsResponse>

   In case that a mapping could not be deleted as requested the
   following error response might be returned instead.


















Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <errors xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
       xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
       source="nodeA.example.com">

       <sync:notDeleted
           message="Could not delete the indicated mapping."
           xml:lang="en">

           <mapping source="nj.us.example"
               sourceId="123"
               lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
               expires="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"/>
       </sync:notDeleted>
   </errors>

                    Figure 12: Example <errors> Message


































Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


5.  Transport

   LoST Sync needs an underlying protocol transport mechanism to carry
   requests and responses.  This document uses HTTPS as a transport to
   exchange XML documents.  No fallback to HTTP is provided.

   When using HTTP-over-TLS [RFC2818], LoST Sync messages use the POST
   method.  Request MUST use the Cache-Control response directive "no-
   cache".

   All LoST Sync responses, including those indicating a LoST warning or
   error, are carried in 2xx responses, typically 200 (OK). 3xx, 4xx and
   5xx HTTP response codes indicates that the request itself failed or
   was redirected; these responses do not contain any LoST Sync XML
   elements.




































Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


6.  RelaxNG

   Note: In order to avoid copying pattern definitions from the LoST
   Relax NG schema [RFC5222] to this document we include it as
   "lost.rng" (XML syntax) in the Relax NG schema below.


   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

        <grammar ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
        xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"
        xmlns:a="http://relaxng.org/ns/compatibility/annotations/1.0"
        datatypeLibrary="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes">

            <include href="lost.rng"/>

            <start combine="choice">

             <a:documentation> Location-to-Service Translation (LoST)
               Synchronization Protocol</a:documentation>

                <choice>
                    <ref name="pushMappings"/>
                    <ref name="pushMappingsResponse"/>
                    <ref name="getMappingsRequest"/>
                    <ref name="getMappingsResponse"/>
                </choice>
            </start>


            <define name="pushMappings">
                <element name="pushMappings">
                        <oneOrMore>
                            <ref name="mapping"/>
                        </oneOrMore>

                    <ref name="extensionPoint"/>
                </element>
            </define>

            <define name="pushMappingsResponse">
                <element name="pushMappingsResponse">
                    <ref name="extensionPoint"/>
                </element>
            </define>

             <define name="getMappingsRequest">
                  <element name="getMappingsRequest">



Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


                    <choice>
                         <ref name="exists"></ref>
                         <ref name="extensionPoint"/>
                    </choice>
                </element>
            </define>

             <define name="exists">
                  <element name="exists">
                       <oneOrMore>
                            <element name="mapping-fingerprint">
                                 <attribute name="source">
                                      <data type="token"/>
                                 </attribute>
                                 <attribute name="sourceId">
                                      <data type="token"/>
                                 </attribute>
                                 <attribute name="lastUpdated">
                                      <data type="dateTime"/>
                                 </attribute>
                                 <ref name="extensionPoint"/>
                            </element>
                       </oneOrMore>
                  </element>
             </define>

            <define name="getMappingsResponse">
                <element name="getMappingsResponse">
                        <oneOrMore>
                            <ref name="mapping"/>
                        </oneOrMore>
                    <ref name="extensionPoint"/>
                </element>
            </define>

             <!-- error messages -->

             <define name="notDeleted">
                  <element name="notDeleted">
                       <ref name="basicException"/>
                       <oneOrMore>
                            <ref name="mapping"/>
                       </oneOrMore>
                  </element>
             </define>
        </grammar>





Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


7.  Operational Considerations

   When different LoST servers use the mechanism described in this
   document to synchronize their mapping data then it is important to
   ensure that loops are avoided.  The example shown in Figure 13 with
   three LoST servers A, B and C (each of them acts as a sync source and
   a sync destination) illustrates the challenge in more detail.  A and
   B synchronize data between each other; the same is true for A and C,
   and B and C, respectively.


        A -------- B
         \        /
          \      /
           \    /
            \  /
             C

             Figure 13: Synchronization Configuration Example

   Now, imagine that server A adds a new mapping.  This mapping is
   uniquely identified by the combination of "source", "sourceid" and
   "last updated".  Assume that A would push this new mapping to B and
   C. When B obtained this new mapping it would find out that it has to
   distribute it to its peer C. C would also want to distribute the
   mapping to B. If the original mapping with the "source", "sourceid"
   and "last updated" is not modified by either B or C then these two
   servers would recognize that they already possess the mapping and can
   ignore the update.

   It is important that implementations MUST NOT modify mappings they
   receive.  An entity acting maliciously would, however, intentially
   modify mappings or inject bogus mappings.  To avoid the possibility
   of an untrustworthy member claiming a coverage region that it is not
   authorized for, authoritative mapping server MUST sign mappings they
   distribute using an XML digital signature
   [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212].  A recipient MUST verify that the
   signing entity is indeed authorized to speak for that region.  In
   many cases, this will require an out-of-band agreement to be in place
   to agree on specific entities to take on this role.  Determining who
   can speak for a particular region is inherently difficult unless
   there is a small set of authorizing entities that participants in the
   mapping architecture can trust.  Receiving systems should be
   particularly suspicious if an existing coverage region is replaced by
   a new one that contains a different value in the <uri> element.  With
   digitially singed mappings mappings cannot be modified by
   intermediate LoST servers.




Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


8.  Security Considerations

   This document defines a protocol for exchange of mapping information
   between two entities.  Hence, the protocol operations described in
   this document require authentication of neighboring nodes.

   The LoST Sync client and servers MUST implement TLS and use TLS.
   Which version(s) ought to be implemented will vary over time, and
   depend on the widespread deployment and known security
   vulnerabilities at the time of implementation.  At the time of this
   writing, TLS version 1.2 [RFC5246] is the most recent version, but
   has very limited actual deployment, and might not be readily
   available in implementation toolkits.  TLS version 1.0 [RFC2246] is
   the most widely deployed version, and will give the broadest
   interoperability.

   An additional threat is caused by compromised or misconfigured LoST
   servers.  A denial of service could be the consequence of an injected
   mapping.  If the mapping data contains an URL that does not exist
   then emergency services for the indicated area are not reachable.  If
   all mapping data contains URLs that point to a single PSAP (rather
   than a large number of PSAPs) then this PSAP is likely to experience
   overload conditions.  If the mapping data contains a URL that points
   to a server controlled by the adversary itself then it might
   impersonate PSAPs.

   Section 7 discusses this security threat and mandates signed
   mappings.  For unusal changes to the mapping database approval by a
   system administrator of the emergency services infrastructure (or a
   similar expert) may be required before any mappings are installed.





















Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  Content-type registration for 'application/lostsync+xml'

   This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type
   according to the procedures of RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and guidelines in
   RFC 3023 [RFC3023].

   Type name:  application


   Subtype name:  lostsync+xml


   Required parameters:  none


   Optional parameters:  charset

      Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML.


   Encoding considerations:  Identical to those of "application/xml" as
      described in [RFC3023], Section 3.2.


   Security considerations:  This content type is designed to carry LoST
      Synchronization protocol payloads and the security considerations
      section of RFCXXXX is applicable.  In addition, as this media type
      uses the "+xml" convention, it shares the same security
      considerations as described in [RFC3023], Section 10.  [NOTE TO
      IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
      specification.]


   Interoperability considerations:  None



   Published specification:  RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please
      replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.]


   Applications which use this media type:  Emergency and Location-based
      Systems






Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


   Additional information:

      Magic number(s):  None


      File extension(s):  .lostsyncxml


      Macintosh file type code(s):  'TEXT'


   Person & email address to contact for further information:  Hannes
      Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>


   Intended usage:  LIMITED USE


   Restrictions on usage:  None


   Author:  Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>


   Change controller:

      This specification is a work item of the IETF ECRIT working group,
      with mailing list address <ecrit@ietf.org>.


   Change controller:

      The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>

9.2.  LoST Sync Relax NG Schema Registration

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:lostsync1

   Registrant Contact:  IETF ECRIT Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig
      (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).

   Relax NG Schema:  The Relax NG schema to be registered is contained
      in Section 6.








Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


9.3.  LoST Synchronization Namespace Registration

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1

   Registrant Contact:  IETF ECRIT Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig
      (Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net).

   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:lostsync1</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






















Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


10.  Acknowledgments

   Robins George, Cullen Jennings, Karl Heinz Wolf, Richard Barnes,
   Mayutan Arumaithurai, Alexander Mayrhofer, and Andrew Newton provided
   helpful input.  Jari Urpalainen assisted with the Relax NG schema.
   We would also like to thank our document shepherd Roger Marshall for
   his help with the document.

   We would like to particularly thank Andrew Newton for his timely and
   valuable review of the XML-related content.

   We would like to thank Robert Sparks for his AD review feedback,
   Bjoern Hoehrmann for his media type review, and Julian Reschke and
   Martin Duerst for their applications area reviews.





































Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2246]  Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
              RFC 2246, January 1999.

   [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.

   [RFC2617]  Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
              Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
              Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
              RFC 2617, June 1999.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC3023]  Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media
              Types", RFC 3023, January 2001.

   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

   [RFC5222]  Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
              Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
              Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212]
              Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., Solo, D., Hirsch, F., and T.
              Roessler, "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", World
              Wide Web Consortium Second Edition REC-xmldsig-core-
              20020212, June 2008.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5582]  Schulzrinne, H., "Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and
              Framework", RFC 5582, September 2009.







Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                  LoST Sync                   January 2012


Authors' Addresses

   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


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at




























Schulzrinne & Tschofenig  Expires July 16, 2012                [Page 29]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/