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

Versions: (draft-tschofenig-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5687

Network Working Group                                      H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status:  Informational                           H. Schulzrinne
Expires:  October 8, 2007                                    Columbia U.
                                                           April 6, 2007


 GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and
                              Requirements
                  draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-01.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 October 8, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).












Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


Abstract

   This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements and
   captures discussions for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration
   Protocol (LCP).  This protocol aims to allow an end host to obtain
   location information, by value or by reference, from a Location
   Server (LS) that is located in the access network.  The obtained
   location information can then be used for a variety of different
   protocols and purposes.  For example, it can be used as input to the
   Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) or to convey location
   within SIP to other entities.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Fixed Wired Environment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Moving Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Wireless Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Discovery of the Location Information Server . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Identifier for Location Determination  . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 26


















Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


1.  Introduction

   This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements and
   captures discussions for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration
   Protocol (LCP).  The protocol has two purposes:

   o  It is used to obtain location information from a special node,
      called the Location Server (LS).

   o  It enables the end host to obtain a reference to location
      information.  This reference can take the form of a subscription
      URI, such as a SIP presence URI, an HTTP/HTTPS URI, or any others.
      The requirements related to the task of obtaining such a reference
      are described in a separate document, see [4].

   The need for these two functions can be derived from the scenarios
   presented in Section 3.

   For this document we assume that the GEOPRIV Layer 7 LCP runs between
   the end host (i.e., the Target in [1] terminology) acting as the LCP
   client and the Location Server acting as an LCP server.

   This document splits the problem space into separate parts and
   discusses them in separate subsections.  Section 4 discusses the
   challenge of discovering the Location Information Server in the
   access network.  Section 5 compares different types of identifiers
   that can be used to retrieve location information.  A list of
   requirements for the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
   can be found in Section 6.

   This document does not describe how the access network provider
   determines the location of the end host since this is largely a
   matter of the capabilities of specific link layer technologies.


















Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2],
   with the qualification that unless otherwise stated these words apply
   to the design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol.

   We also use terminology from [1] and [3].










































Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


3.  Scenarios

   This section describes a few network scenarios where the GEOPRIV
   Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol may be used.  Note that this
   section does not aim to list all possible deployment environments
   exhaustively.  We focus on the description of the following
   environments:

   o  DSL/Cable networks, WiMax-like fixed access

   o  Airport, City, Campus Wireless Networks, such as 802.11a/b/g,
      802.16e/Wimax

   o  3G networks

   o  Enterprise networks

   We illustrate a few examples below.

3.1.  Fixed Wired Environment

   The following figure shows a DSL network scenario with the Access
   Network Provider and the customer premises.  The Access Network
   Provider operates link and network layer devices (represented as
   Node) and the Location Server (LS).


























Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   +---------------------------+
   |                           |
   |  Access Network Provider  |
   |                           |
   |   +--------+              |
   |   | Node   |              |
   |   +--------+ +----------+ |
   |       |  |   | LS       | |
   |       |  +---|          | |
   |       |      +----------+ |
   |       |                   |
   +-------+-------------------+
           | Wired Network
   <----------------> Access Network Provider demarc
           |
   +-------+-------------------+
   |       |                   |
   |   +-------------+         |
   |   | NTE         |         |
   |   +-------------+         |
   |       |                   |
   |       |                   |
   |   +--------------+        |
   |   | Device with  | Home   |
   |   | NAPT and     | Router |
   |   | DHCP server  |        |
   |   +--------------+        |
   |       |                   |
   |       |                   |
   |    +------+               |
   |    | End  |               |
   |    | Host |               |
   |    +------+               |
   |                           |
   |Customer Premises Network  |
   |                           |
   +---------------------------+

                          Figure 1: DSL Scenario

   The customer premises consists of a router with a Network Address
   Translator with Port Address Translation (NAPT) and a DHCP server as
   used in most Customer Premises Networks (CPN) and the Network
   Termination Equipment (NTE) where Layer 1 and sometimes Layer 2
   protocols are terminated.  The router in the home network (e.g.,
   broadband router, cable or DSL router) typically runs a NAPT and a
   DHCP server.  The NTE is a legacy device and in many cases cannot be
   modified for the purpose of delivering location information to the



Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   end host.  The same is true of the device with the NAPT and DHCP
   server.

   It is possible for the NTE and the home router to physically be in
   the same box, or for there to be no home router, or for the NTE and
   end host to be in the same physical box (with no home router).  An
   example of this last case is where Ethernet service is delivered to
   customers' homes, and the Ethernet NIC in their PC serves as the NTE.

   Current Customer Premises Network (CPN) deployments frequently show
   the following characteristics:

   1.  CPE = Single PC

       1.  with Ethernet NIC [PPPoE or DHCP on PC]; there may be a
           bridged DSL or cable modem as NTE, or the Ethernet NIC might
           be the NTE

       2.  with USB DSL or cable modem [PPPoA, PPPoE, or DHCP on PC]

       Note that the device with NAPT and DHCP of Figure 1 is not
       present in such a scenario.

   2.  One or more hosts with at least one router [DHCP Client or PPPoE,
       DHCP server in router; VoIP can be soft client on PC, stand-alone
       VoIP device, or Analog Terminal Adaptor (ATA) function embedded
       in router]

       1.  combined router and NTE

       2.  separate router with NTE in bridged mode

       3.  separate router with NTE [NTE/router does PPPoE or DHCP to
           WAN, router provides DHCP server for hosts in LAN; double NAT

   The majority of fixed access broadband customers use a router.  The
   placement of the VoIP client is mentioned to describe what sorts of
   hosts may need to be able to request location information.  Soft
   clients on PCs are frequently not launched until long after bootstrap
   is complete, and are not able to control any options that may be
   specified during bootstrap.  They also cannot control whether a VPN
   client is operating on the PC.

3.2.  Moving Network

   An example of a moving network is a "WIMAX-like fixed wireless"
   scenario that is offered in several cities, like New Orleans, Biloxi,
   etc., where much of the communications infrastructure was destroyed



Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   due to a natural disaster.  The customer-side antenna for this
   service is rather small (about the size of a mass market paperback
   book) and can be run off battery power.  The output of this little
   antenna is a RJ-45 Ethernet jack.  A laptop can be plugged into this
   Ethernet jack.  The user would then run a PPPoE client to connect to
   the network.  Once the network connection is established, the user
   can run a SIP client on the laptop.

   The network-side antenna is, for example, connected through ATM to
   the core network, and from there to the same BRASs that serve regular
   DSL customers.  These Broadband Remote Access Servers (BRASs)
   terminate the PPPoE sessions, just like they do for regular DSL.

   The laptop and SIP client are, in this case, unaware that they are
   "mobile".  All they see is an Ethernet connection, and the IP address
   they get from PPPoE does not change over the coverage area.  Only the
   user and the network are aware of the laptop's mobility.

   Further examples of moving networks can be found in busses, trains,
   airplanes.

   Figure 2 shows an example topology for a moving network.





























Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   +--------------------------+
   | Wireless                 |
   | Access Network Provider  |
   |                          |
   |              +----------+|
   |      +-------+ LS       ||
   |      |       |          ||
   |  +---+----+  +----------+|
   |  | Node   |              |
   |  |        |              |
   |  +---+----+              |
   |      |                   |
   +------+-------------------+
          | Wireless Interface
          |
   +------+-------------------+
   |      |    Moving Network |
   |  +---+----+              |
   |  | NTE    |   +--------+ |
   |  |        +---+ Host   | |
   |  +-+-----++   |  B     | |
   |    |     \    +--------+ |
   |    |      \              |
   |+---+----+  \  +---+----+ |
   || Host   |   \ | Host   | |
   ||  A     |    \+  B     | |
   |+--------+     +--------+ |
   +--------------------------+

                         Figure 2: Moving Network

3.3.  Wireless Access

   Figure 3 shows a wireless access network where a moving end host
   obtains location information or references to location information
   from the LS.  The access equipment uses, in many cases, link layer
   devices.  This figure represents a hotspot network found in hotels,
   airports, coffee shops.  For editorial reasons we only describe a
   single access point and do not depict how the LS obtains location
   information since this is very deployment specific.











Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   +--------------------------+
   | Access Network Provider  |
   |                          |
   |              +----------+|
   |      +-------| LS       ||
   |      |       |          ||
   |  +--------+  +----------+|
   |  | Access |              |
   |  | Point  |              |
   |  +--------+              |
   |      |                   |
   +------+-------------------+
          |
        +------+
        | End  |
        | Host |
        +------+

                    Figure 3: Wireless Access Scenario
































Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


4.  Discovery of the Location Information Server

   When an end host wants to retrieve location information from the LS
   it first needs to discover it.  Based on the problem statement of
   determining the location of the end host, which is known best by
   entities close to the end host itself, we assume that the LS is
   located in the access network.  Several procedures have been
   investigated that aim to discovery the LS in such an access network.

   DHCP-based Discovery:

      In some environments the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol might
      be a good choice for discovering the FQDN or the IP address of the
      LS.  In environments where DHCP can be used it is also possible to
      use the already defined location extensions.  In environments with
      legacy devices, such as the one shown in Section 3.1, a DHCP based
      discovery solution is not possible.


   DNS-based Discovery:

      With this idea the end host obtains its public IP address (e.g.,
      via STUN [5]) in order to obtain its domain name (via the usual
      reverse DNS lookup).  Then, the SRV or NAPTR record for that
      domain is retrieved.  This relies on the user's public IP address
      having a DNS entry.


   Redirect Rule:

      A redirect rule at a device in the access network, for example at
      the AAA client, will be used to redirect the Geopriv-L7 signalling
      messages (destined to a specific port) to the LS.  The end host
      could then discover the LS by sending a packet to almost any
      address (as long it is not in the local network).  The packet
      would be redirected to the respective LS being configured.  The
      same procedure is used by captive portals whereby any HTTP traffic
      is intercepted and redirected.


   Multicast Query:

      An end node could also discover a LS by sending a multicast
      request to a well-known address.  An example of such a mechanism
      is multicast DNS (see [6] and [7]).

   The LS discovery procedure raises deployment and security issues.
   When an end host discovers a LS,



Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   1.  it does not talk to a man-in-the-middle adversary, and

   2.  it needs to ensure that the discovered entity is indeed an
       authorized LS.















































Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


5.  Identifier for Location Determination

   The LS returns location information to the end host when it receives
   a request.  Some form of identifier is therefore needed to allow the
   LS to determine the current location of the target or a good
   approximation of it.

   The chosen identifier needs to have the following properties:

   Ability for end host to learn or know the identifier:

      The end host MUST know or MUST be able to learn the identifier
      (explicitly or implicitly) in order to send it to the LS.
      Implicitly refers to the situation where a device along the path
      between the end host and the LS modifies the identifier, as it is
      done by a NAT when an IP address based identifier is used.


   Ability to use the identifier for location determination:

      The LS MUST be able to use the identifier (directly or indirectly)
      for location determination.  Indirectly refers to the case where
      the LS uses other identifiers locally within the access network,
      in addition to the one provided by the end host, for location
      determination.


   Security properties of the identifier:

      Misuse needs to be minimized whereby off-path adversary MUST NOT
      be able to obtain location information of other hosts.  A on-path
      adversary in the same subnet SHOULD NOT be able to spoof the
      identifier of another host in the same subnet.

   The problem is further complicated by the requirement that the end
   host should not be aware of the network topology and the LS must be
   placed in such a way that it can determine location information with
   the available information.  As shown in Figure 1 the host behind the
   NTE/NAPT-DHCP device is not visible to the access network and the LS
   itself.  In the DSL network environment some identifier used at the
   NTE is observable for by the LS/access network.

   The following list discusses frequently mentioned identifiers and
   their properties:







Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   Host MAC address:

      The host MAC address is known to the end system, but not carried
      over an IP hop.


   ATM VCI/VPI:

      The VPI/VCI is generally only seen by the DSL modem.  Almost all
      routers in the US use 1 of 2 VPI/VCI value pairs:  0/35 and 8/35.
      This VC is terminated at the DSLAM, which uses a different VPI/VCI
      (per end customer) to connect to the ATM switch.  Only the network
      provider is able to map VPI/VCI values through its network.  With
      the arrival of VDSL, ATM will slowly be phased out in favor of
      Ethernet.


   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.


   Cell ID:

      This identifier is available in cellular data networks and the
      cell ID might not be visible to the end host.


   Authenticated User Identity:

      In DSL networks the user credentials are, in many cases, only
      known by the router and not to the end host.  To the network, the
      authenticated user identity is only available if a network access
      authentication procedure is executed.  In case of roaming it still
      might not be available to the access network since security
      protocols might provide user identity confidentiality and thereby
      hide the real identity of the user allowing the access network to
      only see a pseudonym or a randomized string.


   Host Identifier:

      The Host Identifier introduced by the Host Identity Protocol [8]
      allows identification of a particular host.  Unfortunately, the
      network can only use this identifier for location determination if
      the operator already stores an mapping of host identities to



Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


      location information.  Furthermore, there is a deployment problem
      since the host identities are not used in todays networks.


   Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA):

      The concept of a Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) was
      introduced by [9].  The basic idea is to put the truncated hash of
      a public key into the interface identifier part of an IPv6
      address.  In addition to the properties of an IP address it allows
      a proof of ownership.  Hence, a return routability check can be
      omitted.


   Network Access Identifiers:

      A Network Access Identifier [10] is only used during the network
      access authentication procedure in RADIUS [11] or Diameter [12].
      Furthermore, in a roaming scenario it does not help the access
      network to make meaningful decisions since the username part might
      be a pseudonym and there is no relationship to the end host's
      location.


   Unique Client Identifier

      The DSL Forum has defined that all devices that expect to be
      managed by the TR-069 interface be able to generate an identifier
      as described in DSL Forum TR-069v2 Section 3.4.4.  It also has a
      requirement that routers that use DHCP to the WAN use RFC 4361
      [13] to provide the DHCP server with a unique client identifier.
      This identifier is, however, not visible to the end host with the
      assumption of a legacy device like the NTE.  If we assume that the
      LTE can be modified then a number of solutions come to mind
      including DHCP based location delivery.


   IP Address:

      The end host's IP address may be used for location determination.
      This IP address is not visible to the LS if the end host is behind
      one or multipel NATs.  This is, however, not a problem since the
      location of a host that is located behind a NAT cannot be
      determined by the access network.  The LS would in this case only
      see the public IP address of the NAT binding allocated by the NAT,
      which is the correct behavior.  The property of the IP address for
      a return routability check is attractive as well to return
      location information only to a device that transmitted the



Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


      request.  The LS receives the request and provides location
      information back to the same IP address.  If an adversary wants to
      learn location information from an IP address other than its own
      IP address then it would not see the response message (unless he
      is on the subnetwork or at a router along the path towards the LS)
      since the LS would return the message to the address where it came
      from.

      On a shared medium an adversary could ask for location information
      of another host using its IP address.  The adversary would be able
      to see the response message since he is sniffing on the shared
      medium unless security mechanisms (such as link layer encryption)
      is in place.  With a network deployment as shown in Section 3.1
      with multiple hosts in the Customer Premise being behind a NAT the
      LS is unable to differentiate the individual end points.  For WLAN
      deployments as found in hotels, as shown in as shown in
      Section 3.3, it is possible for an adversary to eavesdrop data
      traffic and subsequently to spoof the IP address in a query to the
      LS to learn more detailed location information (e.g., specific
      room numbers).  Such an attack might, for example, compromise the
      privacy of hotel guests.  Note that DHCP would suffer from the
      same problem here unless each node uses link layer security
      mechanism.

      Return routability checks are useful only if the adversary does
      not see the response message and if the goal is to delay state
      establishment.  If the adversary is in a broadcast network then a
      return routability check alone is not sufficient to prevent the
      above attack since the adversary will observe the response.






















Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


6.  Requirements

   The following requirements and assumptions have been identified:

   Requirement L7-1: Identifier Choice

      The LS MUST be presented with a unique identifier of its own
      addressing realm associated directly or indirectly (i.e., linked
      through other identifiers) with the physical location of the end
      host.

      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.


   Requirement L7-2: Mobility Support

      The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST support a
      broad range of mobility from devices that can only move between
      reboots, to devices that can change attachment points with the
      impact that their IP address is changed, to devices that do not
      change their IP address while roaming, to devices that
      continuously move by being attached to the same network attachment
      point.


   Requirement L7-3: Layer 7 and Layer 2/3 Provider Relationship

      The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
      MUST NOT assume a business or trust relationship between the
      provider of application layer (e.g., SIP, XMPP, H.323) provider
      and the access network provider operating the LS.


   Requirement L7-4: Layer 2 and Layer 3 Provider Relationship

      The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
      MUST assume that there is a trust and business relationship
      between the L2 and the L3 provider.  The L3 provider operates the
      LS and needs to obtain location information from the L2 provider
      since this one is closest to the end host.  If the L2 and L3
      provider for the same host are different entities, they cooperate
      for the purposes needed to determine end system locations.







Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   Requirement L7-5: Legacy Device Considerations

      The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
      MUST consider legacy residential NAT devices and NTEs in an DSL
      environment that cannot be upgraded to support additional
      protocols, for example to pass additional information through
      DHCP.


   Requirement L7-6: VPN Awareness

      The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
      MUST assume that at least one end of a VPN is aware of the VPN
      functionality.  In an enterprise scenario, the enterprise side
      will provide the LS used by the client and can thereby detect
      whether the LS request was initiated through a VPN tunnel.


   Requirement L7-7: Network Access Authentication

      The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
      MUST NOT assume prior network access authentication.


   Requirement L7-8: Network Topology Unawareness

      The design of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol
      MUST NOT assume end systems being aware of the access network
      topology.  End systems are, however, able to determine their
      public IP address(es) via mechanisms such as STUN [5] or NSIS
      NATFW NSLP [14] .


   Requirement L7-9: Discovery Mechanism

      The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST provide a
      mandatory-to-implement discovery mechanism.














Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


7.  Security Considerations

   This document addresses security aspect throughout the document.
















































Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require actions by IANA.
















































Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


9.  Contributors

   This contribution is a joint effort of the GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location
   Configuration Requirements Design Team of the IETF GEOPRIV Working
   Group.  The contributors include Henning Schulzrinne, Barbara Stark,
   Marc Linsner, Andrew Newton, James Winterbottom, Martin Thomson,
   Rohan Mahy, Brian Rosen, Jon Peterson and Hannes Tschofenig.

   The design team members can be reached at:

   Marc Linsner:  mlinsner@cisco.com

   Rohan Mahy:  rohan@ekabal.com

   Andrew Newton:  andy@hxr.us

   Jon Peterson:  jon.peterson@neustar.biz

   Brian Rosen:  br@brianrosen.net

   Henning Schulzrinne:  hgs@cs.columbia.edu

   Barbara Stark:  Barbara.Stark@bellsouth.com

   Martin Thomson:  Martin.Thomson@andrew.com

   Hannes Tschofenig:  Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com

   James Winterbottom:  James.Winterbottom@andrew.com






















Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


10.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank the IETF GEOPRIV working group chairs, Andy
   Newton, Allison Mankin and Randall Gellens, for creating this design
   team.  Furthermore, we would like thank Andy Newton for his support
   during the design team mailing list, for setting up Jabber chat
   conferences and for participating in the phone conference
   discussions.

   We would also like to thank Murugaraj Shanmugam, Ted Hardie, Martin
   Dawson, Richard Barnes, James Winterbottom, Tom Taylor, Otmar Lendl,
   Marc Linsner, Brian Rosen, Roger Marshall, Guy Caron, Doug Stuard,
   Eric Arolick, Dan Romascanu, Jerome Grenier, Martin Thomson, Barbara
   Stark, Michael Haberler for their WGLC review comments.





































Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
         Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.

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

   [3]   Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for Emergency
         Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
         draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13 (work in progress),
         March 2007.

11.2.  Informative References

   [4]   Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
         Mechanism used in Location  Configuration and Conveyance",
         draft-marshall-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-01 (work in progress),
         March 2007.

   [5]   Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy, "STUN
         - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through
         Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.

   [6]   Aboba, B., "Link-local Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)",
         draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-47 (work in progress), August 2006.

   [7]   Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS",
         draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-06 (work in progress),
         August 2006.

   [8]   Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-07
         (work in progress), February 2007.

   [9]   Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
         RFC 3972, March 2005.

   [10]  Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The Network
         Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.

   [11]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote
         Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865,
         June 2000.

   [12]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko,
         "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.



Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


   [13]  Lemon, T. and B. Sommerfeld, "Node-specific Client Identifiers
         for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version Four (DHCPv4)",
         RFC 4361, February 2006.

   [14]  Stiemerling, M., "NAT/Firewall NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol
         (NSLP)", draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-14 (work in progress),
         March 2007.

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

   [16]  Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol",
         draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-05 (work in progress), March 2007.

   [17]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
         Identity Management in the Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)",
         draft-ietf-sip-identity-06 (work in progress), October 2005.

   [18]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for Authenticated
         Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
         RFC 4474, August 2006.






























Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
   Munich, Bavaria  81739
   Germany

   Phone:  +49 89 636 40390
   Email:  Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
   URI:    http://www.tschofenig.com


   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




























Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft      Geopriv L7 LCP; Problem Statement         April 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).





Tschofenig & Schulzrinne  Expires October 8, 2007              [Page 26]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/