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

Versions: (draft-tschofenig-geopriv-radius-lo) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RFC 5580

GEOPRIV                                               H. Tschofenig, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                              F. Adrangi
Expires: February 27, 2008                                         Intel
                                                                M. Jones
                                                                 A. Lior
                                                             Bridgewater
                                                                B. Aboba
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                         August 26, 2007


            Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter
                  draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-16.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 February 27, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).








Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


Abstract

   This document describes procedures for conveying access network
   ownership and location information based on a civic and geospatial
   location format in Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
   (RADIUS) and Diameter.

   The distribution of location information is a privacy sensitive task.
   Dealing with mechanisms to preserve the user's privacy is important
   and addressed in this document.









































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Delivery Methods for Location Information  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Location Delivery based on Out-of-Band Agreements  . . . .  6
     3.2.  Location Delivery based on Initial Request . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Location Delivery based on Mid-Session Request . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Location Delivery in Accounting Messages . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.1.  Operator-Name Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.  Location-Information Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.3.  Location-Data Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.3.1.  Civic Location Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.3.2.  Geospatial Location Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     4.4.  Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . 21
     4.5.  Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute . . . . . . . . . 24
     4.6.  Location-Capable Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     4.7.  Requested-Location-Info Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   5.  Table of Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   6.  Diameter RADIUS Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     7.1.  Communication Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     7.2.  Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       7.2.1.  RADIUS Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       7.2.2.  RADIUS Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       7.2.3.  RADIUS Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     7.3.  Identity Information and Location Information  . . . . . . 40
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     8.1.  New Registry: Operator Namespace Identifier  . . . . . . . 42
     8.2.  New Registry: Location Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     8.3.  New Registry: Location Capable Attribute . . . . . . . . . 44
     8.4.  New Registry: Entity Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
     8.5.  New Registry: Privacy Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     8.6.  New Registry: Requested-Location-Info Attribute  . . . . . 45
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   Appendix A.  Matching with Geopriv Requirements  . . . . . . . . . 54
     A.1.  Distribution of Location Information at the User's
           Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     A.2.  Distribution of Location Information at the Visited
           Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
     A.3.  Requirements matching  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 63



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


1.  Introduction

   This document defines attributes within RADIUS and Diameter that can
   be used to convey location-related information within authentication
   and accounting exchanges.

   Location information may be useful in a number of scenarios.
   Wireless networks (including wireless LAN) are being deployed in
   public places such as airports, hotels, shopping malls, and coffee
   shops by a diverse set of operators such as cellular network
   operators, Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), and fixed
   broadband operators.  In these situations, the home network may need
   to know the location of the user, in order to enable location-aware
   billing, location-aware authorization, or other location-aware
   services.  Location information can also prove useful in other
   situations (such as wired networks) where operator network ownership
   and location information may be needed by the home network.

   In order to preserve user privacy, location information needs to be
   protected against unauthorized access and distribution.  Requirements
   for access to location information are defined in [RFC3693].  The
   model includes a Location Generator (LG) that creates location
   information, a Location Server (LS) that authorizes access to
   location information, a Location Recipient (LR) that requests and
   receives information, and a Rule Maker (RM) that provides
   authorization policies to the LS which enforces access control
   policies on requests to location information.  In Appendix A the
   requirements for a GEOPRIV Using Protocol are compared to the
   functionality provided by this document.






















Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


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 [RFC2119].

   RADIUS specific terminology is borrowed from [RFC2865] and [RFC2866].

   Terminology related to privacy issues, location information and
   authorization policy rules is taken from [RFC3693].









































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


3.  Delivery Methods for Location Information

   The following exchanges show how location information is conveyed in
   RADIUS.  In describing the usage scenarios, we assume that privacy
   policies allow location to be conveyed in RADIUS; however, as noted
   in Section 6 similar exchanges can also take place within Diameter.
   Privacy issues are discussed in Section 7.2.

3.1.  Location Delivery based on Out-of-Band Agreements

   Figure 1 shows an example message flow for delivering location
   information during the network access authentication and
   authorization procedure.  Upon a network authentication request from
   an access network client, the Network Access Server (NAS) submits a
   RADIUS Access-Request message that contains location information
   attributes among other required attributes.  In this scenario
   location information is attached to the Access-Request message
   without an explicit request from the RADIUS server.  Note that such
   an approach with a prior agreement between the RADIUS client and the
   RADIUS server is only applicable in certain environments, such as in
   situations where the RADIUS client and server are within the same
   administrative domain.  The Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute is
   populated based on the defaults described in Section 4.4, unless it
   has been explicitly configured otherwise.



























Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


    +---------+             +---------+                   +---------+
    |         |             | Network |                   |  RADIUS |
    | User    |             | Access  |                   |  Server |
    |         |             | Server  |                   |         |
    +---------+             +---------+                   +---------+
        |                       |                              |
        | Authentication phase  |                              |
        | begin                 |                              |
        |---------------------->|                              |
        |                       |                              |
        |                       | Access-Request               |
        |                       | + Location-Information       |
        |                       | + Location-Data              |
        |                       | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules|
        |                       | + Operator-Name              |
        |                       |----------------------------->|
        |                       |                              |
        |                       | Access-Accept                |
        |                       |<-----------------------------|
        | Authentication        |                              |
        | Success               |                              |
        |<----------------------|                              |
        |                       |                              |

        Figure 1: Location Delivery based on out-of-band Agreements

3.2.  Location Delivery based on Initial Request

   If the RADIUS client provides a Location-Capable Attribute in the
   Access-Request, then the RADIUS server MAY challenge the RADIUS
   client for location information if it requires that information for
   authorization, and location information was not provided in Access-
   Request.  This exchange is shown in Figure 2.  The inclusion of the
   Location-Capable Attribute in an Access-Request message indicates
   that the NAS supports this specification and is capable of providing
   location in response to an Access-Challenge.  The subsequent Access-
   Challenge message sent from the RADIUS server to the NAS provides a
   hint regarding the type of desired location information attributes.
   The NAS treates the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-
   Location-Policy-Rules Attributes as opaque data (e.g., it echoes
   these rules provided by the server within the Access-Challenge back
   in the Access-Request).  In the shown message flow the location
   attributes are then provided in the subsequent Access-Request
   message.  When receiving this Access-Request message the
   authorization procedure at the RADIUS server might be based on a
   number of criteria, including the newly defined attributes listed in
   Section 4.




Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   +---------+             +---------+                       +---------+
   |         |             | Network |                       |  RADIUS |
   | User    |             | Access  |                       |  Server |
   |         |             | Server  |                       |         |
   +---------+             +---------+                       +---------+
       |                       |                                  |
       | Authentication phase  |                                  |
       | begin                 |                                  |
       |---------------------->|                                  |
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Access-Request                   |
       |                       | + Location-Capable               |
       |                       |--------------------------------->|
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Access-Challenge                 |
       |                       |  + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules   |
       |                       |  + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
       |                       |  + Requested-Location-Info       |
       |                       |<---------------------------------|
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Access-Request                   |
       |                       |  + Location-Information          |
       |                       |  + Location-Data                 |
       |                       |  + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules   |
       |                       |  + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
       |                       |--------------------------------->|
       |                       |                                  |
       :                       :                                  :
       :       Multiple Protocol Exchanges to perform             :
       :    Authentication, Key Exchange and Authorization        :
       :                  ...continued...                         :
       :                       :                                  :
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Access-Accept                    |
       |                       |<---------------------------------|
       | Authentication        |                                  |
       | Success               |                                  |
       |<----------------------|                                  |
       |                       |                                  |

           Figure 2: Location Delivery based on Initial Request

3.3.  Location Delivery based on Mid-Session Request

   The on demand mid-session location delivery method utilizes the
   Change of Authorization Request (CoA-Request) message, defined in
   [I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis].  At any time during the session the
   Dynamic Authorization Client MAY send a CoA-Request containing



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   session identification attributes to the NAS (i.e., Dynamic
   Authorization Server).

   By including a Service-Type Attribute with a value of "Authorize
   Only" a CoA-Request may instruct the NAS to generate an Access-
   Request containing a Service-Type Attribute with value "Authorize
   Only" in which case the RADIUS client MUST include location
   information in this Access-Request if the Requested-Location-Info
   Attribute included in the Access-Accept included the flag setting
   'FUTURE_REQUESTS'.  This also implies the echoing of the Basic-
   Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes
   received in the previous Access-Accept within the Access-Request sent
   in response to the CoA-Request.

   Upon receiving the Access-Request message containing the Service-Type
   Attribute with a value of Authorize-Only from the NAS, the RADIUS
   server responds with either an Access-Accept or an Access-Reject
   message.

   [I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis] is necessary when location information
   is needed on demand and cannot be obtained from accounting
   information in a timely fashion.

   Figure 3 shows the above-described approach graphically.


  +---------------+                        +---------------+    +------+
  | Dynamic       |                        | Dynamic       |    |RADIUS|
  | Authorization |                        | Authorization |    |Server|
  | Server/NAS    |                        | Client        |    |      |
  +---------------+                        +---------------+    +------+
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Request                             |              |
      |  + Location-Capable                         |              |
      |----------------------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Challenge                           |              |
      |   + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules             |              |
      |   + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |   + Requested-Location-Info                 |              |
      |<-----------------------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Request                             |              |
      |   + Location-Information                    |              |
      |   + Location-Data                           |              |
      |   + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules             |              |
      |   + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |----------------------------------------------------------->|



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      |                                             |              |
      |                                             |              |
      :                                             |              :
      :       Multiple Protocol Exchanges to perform               :
      :    Authentication, Key Exchange and Authorization          :
      :                  ...continued...            |              :
      :                                             |              :
      |                                             |              |
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Accept                              |              |
      |      + Requested-Location-Info              |              |
               (FUTURE_REQUESTS,...)                |              |
      |      + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |      + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules       |              |
      |<-----------------------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |              |
      :                                             :              :
      :                <<Some time later>>          :              :
      :                                             :              :
      |                                             |              |
      | CoA + Service-Type "Authorize Only" + State |              |
      |<--------------------------------------------|              |
      |                                             |              |
      |  CoA NAK + Service-Type "Authorize Only"    |              |
      |          + State                            |              |
      |          + Error-Cause  "Request Initiated" |              |
      |-------------------------------------------->|              |
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Request                             |              |
      |          + Service-Type "Authorize Only"    |              |
      |          + State                            |              |
      |          + Location-Information             |              |
      |          + Location-Data                    |              |
      |          + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules      |              |
      |          + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules   |              |
      |----------------------------------------------------------->|
      |  Access-Accept                              |              |
      |<-----------------------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |              |

   Figure 3: Location Delivery based on CoA with Service-Type 'Authorize
                                   Only'

   When the Dynamic Authorization Client wants to change the values of
   the requested location information, or set the values of the
   requested location information for the first time, it may do so
   without triggering a reauthorization.  Assuming that the NAS had
   previously sent an Access-Request containing a Location-Capable



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Attribute, the DAC can send a CoA-Request to the NAS without a
   Service-Type Attribute, but including the NAS Identifiers and Session
   identifers as per [I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis] and the Requested-
   Location-Info, Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-
   Policy-Rules Attributes.  The Requested-Location-Info, Basic-
   Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes
   MUST NOT be used for session identification.

   Figure 4 shows this approach graphically.


  +---------------+                        +---------------+    +------+
  | Dynamic       |                        | Dynamic       |    |RADIUS|
  | Authorization |                        | Authorization |    |Server|
  | Server/NAS    |                        | Client        |    |      |
  +---------------+                        +---------------+    +------+
      |                                             |              |
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Request                             |              |
      |  + Location-Capable                         |              |
      |----------------------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Challenge                           |              |
      |   + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules             |              |
      |   + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |   + Requested-Location-Info                 |              |
      |<-----------------------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Request                             |              |
      |   + Location-Information                    |              |
      |   + Location-Data                           |              |
      |   + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules             |              |
      |   + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |----------------------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |              |
      |                                             |              |
      :                                             |              :
      :       Multiple Protocol Exchanges to perform               :
      :    Authentication, Key Exchange and Authorization          :
      :                  ...continued...            |              :
      :                                             |              :
      |                                             |              |
      |                                             |              |
      |  Access-Accept                              |              |
      |      + Requested-Location-Info              |              |
      |      + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |      + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules       |              |
      |<-----------------------------------------------------------|



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      |                                             |              |
      :                                             :              :
      :                <<Some time later>>          :              :
      :                                             :              :
      |                                             |              |
      |  CoA                                        |              |
      |      + Requested-Location-Info              |              |
      |      + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules          |              |
      |      + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules       |              |
      |<--------------------------------------------|              |
      |                                             |              |
      |  CoA ACK                                    |              |
      |-------------------------------------------->|              |
      |                                             |              |
      :                                             :              :
      :           <<Further exchanges later>>       :              :
      :                                             :              :

                 Figure 4: Location Delivery based on CoA

3.4.  Location Delivery in Accounting Messages

   Location Information may also be reported in accounting messages.
   Accounting messages are generated when the session starts, when the
   session stops and periodically during the lifetime of the session.
   Accounting messages may also be generated when the user roams during
   handoff.

   Accounting information may be needed by the billing system to
   calculate the user's bill.  For example, there may be different
   tariffs or tax rates applied based on the location.

   If the RADIUS server needs to obtain location information in
   accounting messages then it needs to include a Requested-Location-
   Info Attribute to the Access-Accept message.  The Basic-Location-
   Policy-Rules and the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes are to
   be echoed in the Accounting-Request if indicated in the Access-
   Accept.

   Figure 5 shows the message exchange.











Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   +---------+             +---------+                       +---------+
   |         |             | Network |                       | RADIUS  |
   | User    |             | Access  |                       | Server  |
   |         |             | Server  |                       |         |
   +---------+             +---------+                       +---------+
       |                       |                                  |
       :                       :                                  :
       :          Initial Protocol Interaction                    :
       :          (details omitted)                               :
       :                       :                                  :
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Access-Accept                    |
       |                       |  + Requested-Location-Info       |
       |                       |  + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules   |
       |                       |  + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
       |                       |<---------------------------------|
       | Authentication        |                                  |
       | Success               |                                  |
       |<----------------------|                                  |
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Accounting-Request               |
       |                       |  + Location-Information          |
       |                       |  + Location-Data                 |
       |                       |  + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules   |
       |                       |  + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
       |                       |--------------------------------->|
       |                       |                                  |
       |                       | Accounting-Response              |
       |                       |<---------------------------------|
       |                       |                                  |

            Figure 5: Location Delivery in Accounting Messages



















Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


4.  Attributes

4.1.  Operator-Name Attribute

   This attribute carries the operator namespace identifier and the
   operator name.  The operator name is combined with the namespace
   identifier to uniquely identify the owner of an access network.  The
   value of the Operator-Name is a non-NULL terminated string whose
   length MUST NOT exceed 253 bytes.

   The Operator-Name Attribute SHOULD be sent in Access-Request, and
   Accounting-Request messages where the Acc-Status-Type is set to
   Start, Interim, or Stop.

   A summary of the Operator-Name Attribute is shown below.




































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |            Text              ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       Text (cont.)                                           ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:

       To Be Assigned by IANA  - Operator-Name

     Length:

       >= 5

     Text:

       This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
       is shown below. The data type of this field is text.
       All fields are transmitted from left to right:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Namespace ID  | Operator-Name                                ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Operator-Name                                                ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Namespace ID:

       The value within this field contains the
       operator namespace identifier. The Namespace ID value
       is encoded in ASCII.

       Example: '1' (0x31) for REALM

     Operator-Name:

       The text field of variable length contains an
       Access Network Operator Name.
       This field is a RADIUS base data type of Text.

       Example: anyisp.example.com

   The Namespace ID field provides information about the operator
   namespace.  This document defines four values for this attribute that



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   are listed below.  Additional namespace identifiers must be
   registered with IANA (see Section 8.1) and must be associated with an
   organization responsible for managing the namespace.

   TADIG ('0' (0x30)):

      This namespace can be used to indicate operator names based on
      Transferred Account Data Interchange Group (TADIG) codes defined
      in [GSM].  TADIG codes are assigned by the TADIG Working Group
      within the GSM Association.  The TADIG Code consists of two
      fields, with a total length of five ASCII characters consisting of
      a three-character country code and a two-character alphanumeric
      operator (or company) ID.


   REALM ('1' (0x31)):

      The REALM operator namespace can be used to indicate operator
      names based on any registered domain name.  Such names are
      required to be unique and the rights to use a given realm name are
      obtained coincident with acquiring the rights to use a particular
      Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN).  Since this operator is
      limited to ASCII, any registered domain name which contains non-
      ASCII characters must be encoded.  To encode a domain name, first
      ensure that any non-ASCII characters are in Unicode [Unicode],
      then apply the toAscii operation from RFC 3490 [RFC3490] to each
      label, then re-assemble the encoded labels into a FQDN.


   E212 ('2' (0x32)):

      The E212 namespace can be used to indicate operator names based on
      the Mobile Country Code (MCC) and Mobile Network Code (MNC)
      defined in [ITU212].  The MCC/MCC values are assigned by the
      Telecommunications Standardization Bureau (TSB) within the ITU-T
      and designated administrators in different countries.  The E212
      value consists of three ASCII digits containing the MCC, followed
      by two or three ASCII digits containing the MNC.


   ICC ('3' (0x33)):

      The ICC namespace can be used to indicate operator names based on
      International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Carrier Codes (ICC)
      defined in [ITU1400].  ICC values are assigned by national
      regulatory authorities and are coordinated by the
      Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) within the ITU
      Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T).  When using the



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      ICC namespace, the attribute consists of three uppercase ASCII
      characters containing a three-letter alphabetic country code as
      defined in [ISO], followed by one to six uppercase alphanumeric
      ASCII characters containing the ICC itself.

4.2.  Location-Information Attribute

   The Location-Information Attribute MAY be sent in Access-Request and
   in Accounting-Request messages.  For the Accounting-Request message
   the Acc-Status-Type may be set to Start, Interim or Stop.

   The Location-Information Attribute provides meta-data about the
   location information, such as sighting time, time-to-live, location
   determination method, etc.  Implementations SHOULD treat this
   attribute as undistinguished octets, like the Location-Data Attribute
   to which it refers.

   The format is shown below.


     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Type      |    Length     |            String            ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       String (cont.)                                         ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Type:

      To Be Assigned by IANA  - Location-Information

    Length:

      >= 21

    String:

      This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
      is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
      The fields are transmitted from left to right:

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Index                       | Code          |  Entity       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Sighting Time                                                 ~



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Sighting Time                                                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Time-to-Live                                                 ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Time-to-Live                                                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   Method                                                     ...
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Index (16 bits):

      The 16-bit unsigned integer value allows this attribute
      to provide information relating to the information included
      in the Location-Data Attribute to which it refers (via the Index).

    Code: (8 bits):

      Describes the location profile that is carried in this attribute
      as an unsigned 8-bit integer value.

    Entity (8 bits):

      This field encodes which location this attribute refers to as an
      unsigned 8-bit integer value.

    Sighting Time (64 bits):

      NTP timestamp for the 'sighting time' field.

    Time-to-Live (64 bits):

      NTP timestamp for the 'time-to-live' field.

    Method (variable):

      Describes the way that the location information was
      determined. The values are registered with the 'method' Tokens
      registry by RFC 4119. The data type of this
      field is a string.

   The following fields need more explanation:

   sighting time:

      This field indicates when the Location Information was accurate.
      The data type of this field is a string and and the content is
      expressed in the 64 bit Network Time Protocol (NTP) timestamp



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      format [RFC1305].


   time-to-live:

      This field gives a hint until when location information should be
      considered current.  The data type of this field is a string and
      the content is expressed in the 64 bit Network Time Protocol (NTP)
      timestamp format [RFC1305].  Note that the time-to-live field is
      different than Retention Expires field used in the Basic-Location-
      Policy-Rules Attribute, see Section 4.4.  Retention expires
      indicates the time the recipient is no longer permitted to possess
      the location information.


   Entity:

      Location information can refer to different entities.  This
      document registers two entity values, namely:

         Value (0) describes the location of the user's client device

         Value (1) describes the location of the RADIUS client

      The registry used for these values is established by this
      document, see Section 8.4.


   Code:

      This field indicates the content of the location profile carried
      in the Location-Data Attribute.  Two profiles are defined in this
      document, namely one civic location profile (see Section 4.3.1)
      that uses value (0) and a geospatial location profile (see
      Section 4.3.2) that uses the value (1).

   The length of the Location-Information Attribute MUST NOT exceed 253
   octets.

4.3.  Location-Data Attribute

   The Location-Data Attribute MAY be sent in Access-Request and in
   Accounting-Request messages.  For the Accounting-Request message the
   Acc-Status-Type may be set to Start, Interim or Stop.

   Implementations SHOULD treat this attribute as undistinguished
   octets.




Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   The format is shown below.


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |            String            ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       String (cont.)                                         ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:

       To Be Assigned by IANA  - Location-Data

     Length:

       >= 21

     String:

       This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
       is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
       All fields are transmitted from left to right:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Index                       |  Location                    ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Location                                                    ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Index (16 bits):

       The 16-bit unsigned integer value allows to associate
       the Location-Data Attribute with the
       Location-Information Attributes.

     Location (variable):

       The format of the location data depends on the location
       profile. This document defines two location profiles.
       Details of the location profiles is described below.







Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


4.3.1.  Civic Location Profile

   Civic location is a popular way to describe the location of an
   entity.  This section defines the civic location information profile
   corresponding to the value (0) indicated in the Code field of the
   Location-Information Attribute.  The location format is based on the
   encoding format defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC4776] whereby the first
   3 octets (i.e., the code for this DHCP option, the length of the DHCP
   option, and the 'what' element are not included) are not put into the
   Location field of the above-described RADIUS Location-Data Attribute.

4.3.2.  Geospatial Location Profile

   This section defines the geospatial location information profile
   corresponding to the value (1) indicated in the Code field of the
   Location-Information Attribute.  Geospatial location information is
   encoded as an opaque object whereby the format is reused from the
   Section 2 of RFC 3825 Location Configuration Information (LCI) format
   [RFC3825]. starting with starting with the third octet (i.e., the
   code for the DHCP option and the length field is not included).

4.4.  Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute

   The Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute MAY be sent in an Access-
   Request, Access-Accept, an Access-Challenge, an Access-Reject, a
   Change-of-Authorization and in an Accounting-Request message.

   Policy rules control the distribution of location information.  The
   obligation with respect to understanding and processing of the Basic-
   Location-Policy-Rules Attribute for RADIUS clients is to utilize a
   default value of Basic-Location-Policy-Rules unless explicitly
   configured otherwise, and also for clients to echo the Basic-
   Location-Policy-Rules Attribute that they receive from a server.  As
   a default, the note-well field does not carry a pointer to human
   readable privacy policies, the retransmission-allowed is set to zero
   (0), i.e., further distribution is not allowed, and the retention-
   expires field is set to 24 hours.

   With regard to authorization policies this document reuses work done
   in [RFC4119] and encodes them in a non-XML format.  Two fields
   ('sighting time' and 'time-to-live') are additionally included in the
   Location-Information Attribute to conform to the GEOPRIV requirements
   [RFC3693], Section 2.7.

   The format of the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute is shown
   below.





Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |            String            ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       String (cont.)                                         ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:

       To Be Assigned by IANA  - Basic-Location-Policy-Rules

     Length:

       >= 12

     String:

       This field is at least 8 octets in length, and the format
       is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
       All fields are transmitted from left to right:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Flags                        | Retention Expires            ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Retention Expires                                            ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Retention Expires             | Note Well                    ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Note Well                                                    ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Flag (16 bits):

       Only the first bit (R) is defined and corresponds to the
       retransmission-allowed field. All other bits are reserved
       and MUST be zero.

        0                   1
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |R|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       The symbol 'o' refers to reserved flags.




Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


     Retention Expires (64 bits):

       NTP timestamp for the 'retention-expires' field.

     Note Well (variable):

       This field contains a URI that points to human readable
       privacy instructions. The data type of this field is string.

   This document reuses fields of the RFC 4119 [RFC4119] 'usage-rules'
   element.  These fields have the following meaning:

   retransmission-allowed:

      When the value of this field is to zero (0), then the recipient of
      this Location Object is not permitted to share the enclosed
      location information, or the object as a whole, with other
      parties.  The value of '1' allows to share the location
      information with other parties by considering the extended policy
      rules.


   retention-expires:

      This field specifies an absolute date at which time the Recipient
      is no longer permitted to possess the location information.  The
      data type of this field is a string and the format is a 64 bit NTP
      timestamp [RFC1305].


   note-well:

      This field contains a URI that points to human readable privacy
      instructions.  This field is useful when location information is
      distributed to third party entities, which can include humans in a
      location based service.  RADIUS entities are not supposed to
      process this field.

      Whenever a Location Object leaves the RADIUS eco-system the URI in
      the note-well attribute MUST be expanded to the human readable
      text.  For example, when the Location Object is transferred to a
      SIP based environment then the human readable text is placed into
      the 'note-well' element of the 'usage-rules' element contained in
      the PIDF-LO document (see [RFC4119]).







Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


4.5.  Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute

   The Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute MAY be sent in an
   Access-Request, an Access-Accept, an Access-Challenge, an Access-
   Reject, an Change-of-Authorization and in an Accounting-Request
   message.

   The ruleset reference field of this attribute is of variable length.
   It contains a URI that indicates where the richer ruleset can be
   found.  This URI SHOULD use the HTTPS URI scheme.  As a deviation
   from [RFC4119] this field only contains a reference and does not
   carry an attached extended rule set.  This modification is motivated
   by the size limitations imposed by RADIUS.

   Policy rules control the distribution of location information and, as
   with the Basic Policy Rules Attribute the obligation with respect to
   understanding and processing of the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
   Attribute for RADIUS clients is when they are explicitly configured
   to attach the URI, and also for clients to echo the Extended-
   Location-Policy-Rules Attribute that they receive from a server.
   There is no expectation that RADIUS clients will need to retrieve
   data at the URL specified in the attribute and to parse the XML
   policies.

   The format of the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute is shown
   below.

























Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |            String            ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       String (cont.)                                         ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:

       To Be Assigned by IANA  - Extended-Location-Policy-Rules

     Length:

       >= 4

     String:

       This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
       is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
       The fields are transmitted from left to right:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Ruleset Reference                                         ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Ruleset Reference:

       This field contains a URI that points to the policy rules.

4.6.  Location-Capable Attribute

   The Location-Capable Attribute allows a NAS (or client function of a
   proxy server) to indicate support for the functionality specified in
   this document.  The Location-Capable Attribute with the value for
   'Location Capable' MUST be sent with the Access-Request messages, if
   the NAS supports the functionality described in this document and is
   capable of sending location information.  A RADIUS server SHOULD NOT
   challenge for location information unless the Location-Capable
   Attribute has been sent to it.









Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Type          | Length        | Integer                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       Integer (cont.)         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:

       To Be Assigned by IANA - Location-Capable Attribute

     Length:

       6

     Integer:

       This field is a 32-bit integer value.
       Only a single value is defined for this field:

       Value     | Semantic
       ----------+-----------------
         1       | Location Capable

       Other bit positions are available via IANA
       registration.

4.7.  Requested-Location-Info Attribute

   The Requested-Location-Info Attribute allows the RADIUS server to
   indicate what location information about which entity it wants to
   receive.  The latter aspect refers to the entities that are indicated
   in the Entity field of the Location-Information Attribute.

   The Requested-Location-Info Attribute MAY be sent in an Access-
   Accept, in an Access-Challenge, or a Change of Authorization packet.

   If the RADIUS server wants to dynamically decide on a per-request
   basis to ask for location information from the RADIUS client then the
   following cases need to be differentiated.  If the RADIUS client and
   the RADIUS server have agreed out-of-band to mandate the transfer of
   location information for every network access authentication request
   then the processing listed below is not applicable.

   o  If the RADIUS server requires location information for computing
      the authorization decision and the RADIUS client does not provide
      it with the Access-Request message then the Requested-Location-



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      Info Attribute is attached to the Access-Challenge with a hint
      about what is required.  Two cases can be differentiated:

      1.  If the RADIUS client sends the requested information then the
          RADIUS server can process the location-based attributes.

      2.  If the RADIUS server does not receive the requested
          information in response to the Access-Challenge (including the
          Requested-Location-Info Attribute) then the RADIUS server may
          respond with an Access-Reject message with an Error-Cause
          Attribute (including the "Location-Info-Required" value).

   o  If the RADIUS server would like location information in the
      Accounting-Request message but does not require it for computing
      an authorization decision then the Access-Accept message MUST
      include a Required-Info Attribute.  This is typically the case
      when location information is used only for billing.  The RADIUS
      client SHOULD attach location information, if available, to the
      Accounting-Request (unless authorization policies dictate
      something different).

   If the RADIUS server does not send a Requested-Location-Info
   Attribute then the RADIUS client MUST NOT attach location information
   to messages towards the RADIUS server, unless an out-of-band
   agreement is in place.  The user's authorization policies, if
   available, MUST be consulted by the RADIUS server before requesting
   location information delivery from the RADIUS client.

   Figure 12 shows a simple protocol exchange where the RADIUS server
   indicates the desire to obtain location information, namely civic
   location information of the user, to grant access.  Since the
   Requested-Location-Info Attribute is attached to the Access-Challenge
   the RADIUS server indicates that location information is required for
   computing an authorization decision.

















Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


    +---------+                        +---------+
    | RADIUS  |                        | RADIUS  |
    | Client  |                        | Server  |
    +---------+                        +---------+
         |                                  |
         |                                  |
         | Access-Request                   |
         | + Location-Capable               |
         |--------------------------------->|
         |                                  |
         | Access-Challenge                 |
         | + Requested-Location-Info        |
         |   ('CIVIC_LOCATION',             |
         |    'USERS_LOCATION')             |
         | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules    |
         | + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules |
         |<---------------------------------|
         |                                  |
         | Access-Request                   |
         | + Location-Information           |
         | + Location-Data                  |
         | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules    |
         | + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules |
         |--------------------------------->|
         |                                  |
         |        ....                      |

         Figure 12: RADIUS server requesting location information

   The Requested-Location-Info Attribute MUST be sent by the RADIUS
   server, in the absence of an out-of-band agreement, if it wants the
   RADIUS client to return location information and if authorization
   policies permit it.  This Requested-Location-Info Attribute MAY
   appear in the Access-Accept or in the Access-Challenge message.

   A summary of the attribute is shown below.















Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |            Integer           ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       Integer (cont.)         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


     Type:

       To Be Assigned by IANA - Requested-Location-Info Attribute

     Length:

       6

     Integer:

       The content of the Integer field encodes the
       requested information attributes.
       Each capability value represents a bit position.

   This document specifies the following capabilities:

   Name:

      CIVIC_LOCATION


   Description:

      The RADIUS server uses the Requested-Location-Info Attribute with
      the value set to CIVIC_LOCATION to request specific location
      information from the RADIUS client.  The numerical value
      representing CIVIC_LOCATION requires the RADIUS client to attach
      civic location attributes.  CIVIC_LOCATION refers to the location
      profile defined in Section 4.3.1.


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value of this token is '1'.








Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Name:

      GEO_LOCATION


   Description:

      The RADIUS server uses the Requested-Location-Info Attribute with
      the value set to GEO_LOCATION to request specific location
      information from the RADIUS client.  The numerical value
      representing GEO_LOCATION requires the RADIUS client to attach
      geospatial location attributes.  GEO_LOCATION refers to the
      location profile described in Section 4.3.2.


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value of this token is '2'.


   Name:

      USERS_LOCATION


   Description:

      The numerical value representing USERS_LOCATION indicates that the
      RADIUS client MUST sent a Location-Information attribute with the
      Entity attribute expressing the value of zero (0).  Hence, there
      is a one-to-one relationship between USERS_LOCATION token and the
      value of zero (0) of the Entity attribute inside the Location-
      Information attribute.  A value of zero indicates that the
      location information in the Location-Information attribute refers
      to the user's client device.


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value of this token is '4'.


   Name:

      NAS_LOCATION






Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Description:

      The numerical value representing NAS_LOCATION indicates that the
      RADIUS client MUST sent a Location-Information attribute that
      contains location information with the Entity attribute expressing
      the value of one (1).  Hence, there is a one-to-one relationship
      between NAS_LOCATION token and the value of one (1) of the Entity
      attribute inside the Location-Information attribute.  A value of
      one indicates that the location information in the Location-
      Information attribute refers to the RADIUS client.


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value of this token is '8'.


   Name:

      FUTURE_REQUESTS


   Description:

      The numerical value representing FUTURE_REQUESTS indicates that
      the RADIUS client MUST provide future Access-Requests with the
      same information as returned in the initial Access-Request
      message.


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value of this token is '16'.


   Name:

      NONE


   Description:

      The RADIUS server uses this token to request that the RADIUS
      client stops sending location information.







Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value of this token is '32'.


   If neither the NAS_LOCATION nor the USERS_LOCATION bit is set then
   per-default the location of the user's client device is returned (if
   authorization policies allow it).  If both the NAS_LOCATION and the
   USERS_LOCATION bits are set then the returned location information
   has to be put into separate attributes.  If neither the
   CIVIC_LOCATION nor the GEO_LOCATION bit is set in the Requested-
   Location-Info Attribute then no location information is returned.  If
   both the CIVIC_LOCATION and the GEO_LOCATION bits are set then the
   location information has to be put into separate attributes.  The
   value of NAS_LOCATION and USERS_LOCATION refers to the location
   information requested via CIVIC_LOCATION and via GEO_LOCATION.

   As an example, if the bits for NAS_LOCATION, USERS_LOCATION and
   GEO_LOCATION are set then location information of the RADIUS client
   and the users' client device are returned in a geospatial location
   format.






























Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


5.  Table of Attributes

   The following table provides a guide which attributes may be found in
   which RADIUS messages, and in what quantity.


 Request Accept Reject Challenge Accounting  #  Attribute
                                 Request
 0-1     0      0      0         0-1        TBD  Operator-Name
 0+      0      0      0         0+         TBD  Location-Information
 0+      0      0      0         0+         TBD  Location-Data
 0-1     0-1    0-1    0-1       0-1        TBD  Basic-Location-
                                                 Policy-Rules
 0-1     0-1    0-1    0-1       0-1        TBD  Extended-Location-
                                                 Policy-Rules
 0       0-1    0      0-1       0          TBD  Requested-Location-Info
 0-1     0      0      0         0          TBD  Location-Capable
 0       0      0-1    0         0          101  Error-Cause [note1]

 [note1] The Error-Cause attribute contains the value for the
 'Location-Info-Required' error.

 Change-of-Authorization Messages

  Request   ACK      NAK    #    Attribute
   0-1       0        0     TBD  Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
   0-1       0        0     TBD  Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
   0-1       0        0     TBD  Requested-Location-Info


 Legend:

    0     This attribute MUST NOT be present.
    0+    Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present.
    0-1   Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present.
    1     Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present.
    1+    One or more of these attributes MUST be present.

                      Figure 14: Table of Attributes

   The Error-Cause Attribute is defined in [I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis].

   The Location-Information and the Location-Data Attribute MAY appear
   more than once.  For example, if the server asks for civic and
   geospatial location information two Location-Information Attributes
   need to be sent.

   The attributes defined in this document are not used in any messages



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   other than the onces listed in Figure 14.

   This document requests IANA to allocate a new value from the Error-
   Cause registry with the semantic of 'Location-Info-Required'.















































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


6.  Diameter RADIUS Interoperability

   When used in Diameter, the attributes defined in this specification
   can be used as Diameter AVPs from the Code space 1-255 (RADIUS
   attribute compatibility space).  No additional Diameter Code values
   are therefore allocated.  The data types and flag rules for the
   attributes are as follows:


                                     +---------------------+
                                     |    AVP Flag rules   |
                                     |----+-----+----+-----|----+
                                     |    |     |SHLD| MUST|    |
    Attribute Name        Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT|  NOT|Encr|
   ----------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----|
    Operator-Name         OctetString|    | P,M |    |  V  | Y  |
    Location-Information  OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
    Location-Data         OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
    Basic-Location-                  |    |     |    |     |    |
       Policy-Rules       OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
    Extended-Location-               |    |     |    |     |    |
       Policy-Rules       OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
    Requested-                       |    |     |    |     |    |
       Location-Info      OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
    Location-Capable      OctetString|    | P,M |    |  V  | Y  |
   ----------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----|

   The attributes in this specification have no special translation
   requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways;
   they are copied as is, except for changes relating to headers,
   alignment, and padding.  See also Section 4.1 of [RFC3588] and
   Section 9 of [RFC4005].

   What this specification says about the applicability of the
   attributes for RADIUS Access-Request packets applies in Diameter to
   AA-Request [RFC4005] or Diameter-EAP-Request [RFC4072].  What is said
   about Access-Challenge applies in Diameter to AA-Answer [RFC4005] or
   Diameter-EAP-Answer [RFC4072] with Result-Code AVP set to
   DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH.  What is said about Access-Accept applies
   in Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that
   indicate success.  Similarly, what is said about RADIUS Access-Reject
   packets applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer
   messages that indicate failure.

   What is said about CoA-Request applies in Diameter to Re-Auth-Request
   [RFC4005].

   What is said about Accounting-Request applies to Diameter Accounting-



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Request [RFC4005] as well.


















































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


7.  Security Considerations

   A number of security aspects are relevant for the distribution of
   location information via RADIUS.  These aspects are discussed in
   separate sub-sections.

7.1.  Communication Security

   Requirements for the protection of a Location Object are defined in
   [RFC3693], namely mutual end-point authentication, data object
   integrity, data object confidentiality and replay protection.

   If no authentication, integrity and replay protection between the
   participating RADIUS entities is provided then adversaries can spoof
   and modify transmitted attributes.  Two security mechanisms are
   proposed for RADIUS:

   o  [RFC2865] proposes the usage of a static key that raised concerns
      regarding the lack dynamic key management.  At the time of
      writing, work is ongoing to address some shortcomings of [RFC2865]
      attribute security protection.

   o  RADIUS over IPsec [RFC3579] enables the use of standard key
      management mechanisms, such as KINK, IKE and IKEv2 [RFC4306], to
      establish IPsec security associations.  Confidentiality protection
      MUST be used to prevent eavesdropper gaining access to location
      information.  Confidentiality protection is not only a property
      required by this document, it is also required for the transport
      of keying material in the context of EAP authentication and
      authorization.  Hence, this requirement is, in many environments,
      already fulfilled.  Mutual authentication MUST be provided between
      neighboring RADIUS entities to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.
      Since mutual authentication is already required for key transport
      within RADIUS messages it does not represent a deployment
      obstacle.  Since IPsec protection is suggested as a mechanism to
      protect RADIUS already no additional considerations need to be
      addressed beyond those described in [RFC3579].

   In case that IPsec protection is not available for some reason and
   RADIUS specific security mechanisms have to be used then the
   following considerations apply.  The Access-Request message is not
   integrity protected.  This would allow an adversary to change the
   contents of the Location Object or to insert, modify and delete
   attributes or individual fields.  To address these problems the
   Message-Authenticator (80) can be used to integrity protect the
   entire Access-Request packet.  The Message-Authenticator (80) is also
   required when EAP is used and hence is supported by many modern
   RADIUS servers.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Access-Request packets including location attribute(s) without a
   Message-Authenticator(80) Attribute SHOULD be silently discarded by
   the RADIUS server.  A RADIUS server supporting location attributes
   MUST calculate the correct value of the Message-Authenticator(80) and
   MUST silently discard the packet if it does not match the value sent.

   Access-Accept, including location attribute(s) without a Message-
   Authenticator(80) Attribute SHOULD be silently discarded by the NAS.
   A NAS supporting location attributes MUST calculate the correct value
   of a received Message-Authenticator(80) and MUST silently discard the
   packet if it does not match the value sent.

   RADIUS and Diameter make some assumptions about the trust between
   traversed RADIUS entities in the sense that object level security is
   not provided by neither RADIUS nor Diameter.  Hence, some trust has
   to be placed on the RADIUS entities to behave according to the
   defined rules.  Furthermore, the RADIUS protocol does not involve the
   user in their protocol interaction except for tunneling
   authentication information (such as EAP messages) through their
   infrastructure.  RADIUS and Diameter have even become a de-facto
   protocol for key distribution for network access authentication
   applications.  Hence, in the past there were some concerns about the
   trust placed into the infrastructure particularly from the security
   area when it comes to keying.  The EAP keying infrastructure is
   described in [RFC4282].

7.2.  Privacy Considerations

   This section discusses privacy implications for the distribution of
   location information within RADIUS.  Note also that it is possible
   for the RADIUS server to obtain some amount of location information
   from the NAS identifier.  This document, however, describes
   procedures to convey more accurate location information about the end
   host and/or the network.  In a number of deployment environments
   location information about the network also reveals the current
   location of the user with a certain degree of precision depending on
   the location determination mechanism used, update frequency, the size
   of the network and other factors, such as movement traces.

   Three types of use cases have to be differentiated:

   o  RADIUS server does not want to receive location information from
      the RADIUS client.

   o  In case there is an out-of-band agreement between the entity
      responsible for the NAS and the entity operating the RADIUS server
      then location information may be sent without an explicit request
      from the RADIUS server.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   o  The RADIUS server dynamically requests location information from
      the NAS.

7.2.1.  RADIUS Client

   The RADIUS client MUST behave according to the following guidelines:

   o  If neither an out-of-band agreement exists nor location
      information is requested by the RADIUS server then location
      information is not disclosed by the RADIUS client.

   o  The RADIUS client MUST pass location information to other entities
      (e.g., when information is written to a local database or to the
      log files) only together with the policy rules.  The entity
      receiving the location information (together with the policies)
      MUST follow the guidance given with these rules.

   o  A RADIUS client MUST include Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and
      Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes that are configured
      within an Access-Request packet.

   o  NAS implementations supporting this specification, which are
      configured to provide location information, MUST echo Basic-
      Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
      Attributes unmodified within a subsequent Access-Request packet.
      In addition, an Access-Request packet sent with a Service-Type
      value of "Authorize Only" MUST include Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
      or Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes received in a
      previous Access-Accept if the FUTURE_REQUESTS flag was set in the
      Requested-Location-Info Attribute.

7.2.2.  RADIUS Server

   The RADIUS server is a natural place for storing authorization
   policies since the user typically has some sort of trust relationship
   with the entity operating the RADIUS server.  Once the infrastructure
   is deployed and location aware applications are available then there
   might be a strong desire to use location information for other
   purposes as well.

      The Common Policy framework [RFC4745] that was extended for
      geolocation privacy [I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy] are tailored for
      this purpose.  The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration
      Access Protocol (XCAP) [I-D.ietf-simple-xcap] gives users the
      ability to change their privacy policies using a standardized
      protocol.  These policies are an important tool for limiting
      further distribution of the user's location to other location
      based services.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 39]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   The RADIUS server MUST behave according to the following guidelines:

   o  The RADIUS server MUST attach available rules to the Access-
      Accept, the Access-Reject or the Access-Challenge message when the
      RADIUS client is supposed to provide location information.

   o  When location information is made available to other entities
      (e.g., writing to stable storage for latter billing processing)
      then the RADIUS server MUST attach the privacy rules to location
      information.

7.2.3.  RADIUS Proxy

   A RADIUS proxy, behaving as a combined RADIUS client and RADIUS
   server, MUST follow the rules described in Section 7.2.1 and
   Section 7.2.2.

7.3.  Identity Information and Location Information

   For the envisioned usage scenarios, the identity of the user and his
   device is tightly coupled to the transfer of location information.
   If the identity can be determined by the visited network or RADIUS
   brokers, then it is possible to correlate location information with a
   particular user.  As such, it allows the visited network and brokers
   to learn movement patterns of users.

   The user's identity can be "leaked" to the visited network or RADIUS
   brokers in a number of ways:

   o  The user's device may employ a fixed MAC address, or base its IP
      address on such an address.  This enables the correlation of the
      particular device to its different locations.  Techniques exist to
      avoid the use of an IP address that is based on MAC address
      [RFC3041].  Some link layers make it possible to avoid MAC
      addresses or change them dynamically.

   o  Network access authentication procedures, such as PPP CHAP
      [RFC1994] or EAP [RFC4282], may reveal the user's identity as a
      part of the authentication procedure.  Techniques exist to avoid
      this problem in EAP methods, for instance by employing private
      Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) in the EAP Identity Response
      message [RFC4187] and by method-specific private identity exchange
      in the EAP method (e.g., [RFC4187], [I-D.funk-eap-ttls-v0]
      [I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap], [I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2]).
      Support for identity privacy within CHAP is not available.

   o  RADIUS may return information from the home network to the visited
      in a manner that makes it possible to either identify the user or



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 40]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      at least correlate his session with other sessions, such as the
      use of static data in a Class Attribute [RFC2865] or in some
      accounting attribute usage scenarios [RFC4372].

   o  Mobility protocols may reveal some long-term identifier, such as a
      home address.

   o  Application layer protocols may reveal other permanent
      identifiers.

   To prevent the correlation of identities with location information it
   is necessary to prevent leakage of identity information from all
   sources, not just one.

   Unfortunately, most users are not educated about the importance of
   identity confidentiality and some protocols lack support for identity
   privacy mechanisms.  This problem is made worse by the fact that
   users may be unable to choose particular protocols, as the choice is
   often dictated by the type of network operator they use, by the type
   of network they wish to access, the kind of equipment they have, or
   the type of authentication method they are using.

   A scenario where the user is attached to the home network is, from a
   privacy point of view, simpler than a scenario where a user roams
   into a visited network since the NAS and the home RADIUS server are
   in the same administrative domain.  No direct relationship between
   the visited and the home network operator may be available and some
   RADIUS brokers need to be consulted.  With subscription-based network
   access as used today the user has a contractual relationship with the
   home network provider that could (theoretically) allow higher privacy
   considerations to be applied (including policy rules stored at the
   home network itself for the purpose of restricting further
   distribution).

   In many cases it is necessary to secure the transport of location
   information along the RADIUS infrastructure.  Mechanisms to achieve
   this functionality are discussed in Section 7.1.














Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 41]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


8.  IANA Considerations

   The authors request that the Attribute Types, and Attribute Values
   defined in this document be registered by the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA) from the RADIUS name spaces as described in
   the "IANA Considerations" section of RFC 3575 [RFC3575], in
   accordance with BCP 26 [RFC2434].  Additionally, the Attribute Type
   should be registered in the Diameter name space.  For RADIUS
   attributes and registries created by this document IANA is requested
   to place them at http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types.

   This document defines the following attributes:


         Operator-Name
         Location-Information
         Location-Data
         Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
         Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
         Location-Capable
         Requested-Location-Info

   Please refer to Section 5 for the registered list of numbers.

   This document also instructs IANA to assign a new value for the
   Error-Cause Attribute [I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis], of "Location-
   Info-Required" TBA.

   Additionally, IANA is requested to create the following new
   registries listed in the subsections below.

8.1.  New Registry: Operator Namespace Identifier

   This document also defines an operator namespace identifier registry
   (used in the Namespace ID field of the Operator-Name Attribute).
   Note that this document requests IANA only to maintain a registry of
   existing namespaces for use in this identifier field, and not to
   establish any namespaces nor to place any values within namespaces.

   IANA is requested to add the following values to the operator
   namespace identifier registry using a numerical identifier (allocated
   in sequence), a token for the operator namespace and a contact person
   for the registry.








Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 42]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


  +----------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
  |Identifier| Operator Namespace | Contact Person                     |
  |          | Token              |                                    |
  +----------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
  |   0x30   | TADIG              | TD.13 Coordinator                  |
  |          |                    | (td13@gsm.org)                     |
  |   0x31   | REALM              | IETF O&M Area Directors            |
  |          |                    | (ops-chairs@ietf.org)              |
  |   0x32   | E212               | ITU Director                       |
  |          |                    | (tsbdir@itu.int)                   |
  |   0x33   | ICC                | ITU Director                       |
  |          |                    | (tsbdir@itu.int)                   |
  +----------+--------------------+------------------------------------+

   Note that the above identifier values represent the ASCII value '0'
   (decimal 48 or hex 0x30), '1' (decimal 49, or hex 0x31), '2' (decimal
   50, or hex 0x32) and '3' (decimal 51, or hex 0x33).  This encoding
   was chosen to simplify parsing.

   Requests to IANA for a new value for a Namespace ID will be approved
   by Expert Review.  The Designated Expert Reviewer team for these
   requests is the current Operations Area Director and the RADEXT
   working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
   successor working group.

   The Expert Reviewer should ensure that a new entry is indeed required
   or could fit within an existing database, e.g., whether there is a
   real requirement to provide a token for an Namespace ID because one
   is already up and running, or whether the REALM identifier plus the
   name should recommended to the requester.  In addition, the Expert
   Reviewer should ascertain to some reasonable degree of diligence that
   a new entry is a correct reference to an Operator Namespace, when a
   new one is registered.

8.2.  New Registry: Location Profiles

   Section 4.2 defines the Location-Information Attribute and a Code
   field that contains 8 bit integer value.  Two values, zero and one,
   are defined in this document, namely:

   Value (0): Civic location profile described in Section 4.3.1

   Value (1): Geospatial location profile described in Section 4.3.2

   The remaining values are reserved for future use.

   Following the policies outline in [RFC3575] the available bits with a
   description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 43]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   initiated by the O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT
   working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
   successor working group.  Updates can be provided based on expert
   approval only.  A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M Area
   Directors.  No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is
   envisioned.  Based on expert approval it is possible to delete
   entries from the registry.

   Each registration must include the value and the corresponding
   semantic of the defined location profile.

8.3.  New Registry: Location Capable Attribute

   Section 4.6 defines the Location-Capable Attribute that contains a
   bit map. 32 bits are available whereby a single bit, bit (0),
   indicating 'Location Capable' is defined by this document.  Bits 1-15
   are reserved for future use.

   Following the policies outline in [RFC3575] the available bits with a
   description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review
   initiated by the O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT
   working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
   successor working group.  Updates can be provided based on expert
   approval only.  A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M Area
   Directors.  No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is
   envisioned.  Based on expert approval it is possible to delete
   entries from the registry.

   Each registration must include the bit position and the semantic of
   the bit.

8.4.  New Registry: Entity Types

   Section 4.2 defines the Location-Information Attribute that contains
   an 8 bit Entity field.  Two values are registered by this document,
   namely:

   Value (0) describes the location of the user's client device

   Value (1) describes the location of the RADIUS client

   All other values are reserved for future use.

   Following the policies outline in [RFC3575] the available bits with a
   description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review
   initiated by the O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT
   working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
   successor working group.  Updates can be provided based on expert



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 44]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   approval only.  A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M Area
   Directors.  No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is
   envisioned.  Based on expert approval it is possible to delete
   entries from the registry.

   Each registration must include the value and a corresponding
   description.

8.5.  New Registry: Privacy Flags

   Section 4.4 defines the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute that
   contains flags indicating privacy settings. 16 bits are available
   whereby a single bit, bit (0), indicating 'retransmission allowed' is
   defined by this document.  Bits 1-15 are reserved for future use.

   Following the policies outline in [RFC3575] the available bits with a
   description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review
   initiated by the O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT
   working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
   successor working group.  Updates can be provided based on expert
   approval only.  A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M Area
   Directors.  No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is
   envisioned.  Based on expert approval it is possible to delete
   entries from the registry.

   Each registration must include the bit position and the semantic of
   the bit.

8.6.  New Registry: Requested-Location-Info Attribute

   Section 4.7 defines the Requested-Location-Info Attribute that
   contains a bit map. 32 bits are available whereby a 5 bits are
   defined by this document.  This document creates a new IANA registry
   for the Requested-Location-Info Attribute.  IANA is requested to add
   the following values to this registry:


    +----------+----------------------+
    |  Value   | Capability Token     |
    +----------+----------------------+
    |    1     | CIVIC_LOCATION       |
    |    2     | GEO_LOCATION         |
    |    4     | USERS_LOCATION       |
    |    8     | NAS_LOCATION         |
    |   16     | FUTURE_REQUESTS      |
    |   32     | NONE                 |
    +----------+----------------------+




Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 45]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   The semantic of these values is defined in Section 4.7.

   Following the policies outline in [RFC3575] new Capability Tokens
   with a description of their semantic for usage with the Requested-
   Location-Info Attribute will be assigned after Expert Review
   initiated by the O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT
   working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
   successor working group.  Updates can be provided based on expert
   approval only.  A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M Area
   Directors.  No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is
   envisioned.  Based on expert approval it is possible to delete
   entries from the registry.

   Each registration must include:

   Name:

      Capability Token (i.e., an identifier of the capability)


   Description:

      Brief description indicating the meaning of the info element.


   Numerical Value:

      A numerical value that is placed into the Capability Attribute
      representing a bit in the bit-string of the Requested-Location-
      Info Attribute.





















Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 46]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


9.  Contributors

   We would like to thank Bernhard Aboba for the numerous contributions
   to this document.















































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 47]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following people for their help
   with an initial version of this draft and for their input: Chuck
   Black, Paul Congdon, Jouni Korhonen, Sami Ala-luukko, Farooq Bari, Ed
   Van Horne, Mark Grayson, Jukka Tuomi, Jorge Cuellar, and Christian
   Guenther.

   Henning Schulzrinne provided the civic location information content
   found in this draft.  The geospatial location information format is
   based on work done by James Polk, John Schnizlein and Marc Linsner.
   The authorization policy format is based on the work done by Jon
   Peterson.

   The authors would like to thank Victor Lortz, Jose Puthenkulam,
   Bernrad Aboba, Jari Arkko, Parviz Yegani, Serge Manning, Kuntal
   Chowdury, Pasi Eronen, Blair Bullock and Eugene Chang for their
   feedback to an initial version of this draft.  We would like to thank
   Jari Arkko for his text contributions.  Lionel Morand provided
   detailed feedback on numerous issues.  His comments helped to improve
   the quality of this document.  Jouni Korhonen and John Loughney
   helped us with the Diameter RADIUS interoperability.  Andreas
   Pashalidis reviewed a later version document and provided a number of
   comments.  Bernard Aboba, Alan DeKok, Lionel Morand, Jouni Korhonen,
   David Nelson and Emile van Bergen provided guidance on the Requested-
   Location-Info Attribute and participated in the capability exchange
   discussions.  Allison Mankin, Jouni Korhonen and Pasi Eronen provided
   text for the operator namespace identifier registry.  Jouni Korhonen
   interacted with the GSMA to find a contact person for the TADIG
   operator namespace and Scott Bradner consulted the ITU-T to find a
   contact person for the E212 and the ICC operator namespace.

   This document is based on the discussions within the IETF GEOPRIV
   working group.  Therefore, the authors thank Henning Schulzrinne,
   James Polk, John Morris, Allison Mankin, Randall Gellens, Andrew
   Newton, Ted Hardie, Jon Peterson for their time to discuss a number
   of issues with us.  We thank Stephen Hayes for aligning this work
   with 3GPP activities.

   The RADEXT working group chairs, David Nelson and Bernard Aboba,
   provided several draft reviews and we would like to thank them for
   the help and their patience.

   Finally, we would like to thank Bernard Aboba and Dan Romascanu for
   the IETF Last Call comments, Derek Atkins for his security area
   directorate review and Yoshiko Chong for spotting a bug in the IANA
   consideration section.  Bernard spend of lot of his time to interact
   with the authors to resolve the IETF LC issues he raised.  We would



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 48]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   like to thank him for the energie he spend on this document.


















































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 49]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


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.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
              RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [RFC3575]  Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
              Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575,
              July 2003.

   [RFC3588]  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
              Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC3825]  Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
              Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based
              Location Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004.

   [RFC4776]  Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses
              Configuration Information", RFC 4776, November 2006.

11.2.  Informative References

   [GMLv3]    "Open Geography Markup Language (GML) Implementation
              Specification", OGC 02-023r4,
              http://www.opengis.org/techno/implementation.htm",  ,
              January 2003.

   [GSM]      "TADIG Naming Conventions, Version 4.1", GSM Association
              Official Document TD.13",  , June 2006.

   [I-D.funk-eap-ttls-v0]
              Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "EAP Tunneled TLS
              Authentication Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)",
              draft-funk-eap-ttls-v0-01 (work in progress), April 2007.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 50]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy]
              Schulzrinne, H., "Geolocation Policy: A Document Format
              for Expressing Privacy Preferences for  Location
              Information", draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-12 (work in
              progress), May 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis]
              Chiba, M., "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
              Authentication Dial In User  Service (RADIUS)",
              draft-ietf-radext-rfc3576bis-09 (work in progress),
              August 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-simple-xcap]
              Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
              Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)",
              draft-ietf-simple-xcap-12 (work in progress),
              October 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance]
              Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the
              Session Initiation Protocol",
              draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-08 (work in progress),
              July 2007.

   [I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap]
              Josefsson, S., Palekar, A., Simon, D., and G. Zorn,
              "Protected EAP Protocol (PEAP) Version 2",
              draft-josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap-10 (work in progress),
              October 2004.

   [I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2]
              Tschofenig, H., "EAP IKEv2 Method",
              draft-tschofenig-eap-ikev2-13 (work in progress),
              March 2007.

   [ISO]      "Codes for the representation of names of countries and
              their subdivisions - Part 1: Country codes, ISO 3166-1",
               , 1997.

   [ITU1400]  "Designations for interconnections among operators'
              networks, ITU-T Recommendation M.1400",  , January 2004.

   [ITU212]   "The international identification plan for mobile
              terminals and mobile users, ITU-T Recommendation E.212",
               , May 2004.

   [RFC1305]  Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
              Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 51]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   [RFC1994]  Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
              Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.

   [RFC2866]  Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.

   [RFC3041]  Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
              Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041,
              January 2001.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3579]  Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
              Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.

   [RFC3693]  Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, D., and
              D. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.

   [RFC3694]  Danley, M., "Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol",
              RFC 3694, September 2003.

   [RFC4005]  Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
              "Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
              August 2005.

   [RFC4017]  Stanley, D., Walker, J., and B. Aboba, "Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP) Method Requirements for
              Wireless LANs", RFC 4017, March 2005.

   [RFC4072]  Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
              Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
              August 2005.

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

   [RFC4187]  Arkko, J. and H. Haverinen, "Extensible Authentication
              Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key
              Agreement (EAP-AKA)", RFC 4187, January 2006.

   [RFC4282]  Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
              Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.

   [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
              RFC 4306, December 2005.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 52]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   [RFC4372]  Adrangi, F., Lior, A., Korhonen, J., and J. Loughney,
              "Chargeable User Identity", RFC 4372, January 2006.

   [RFC4745]  Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J.,
              Polk, J., and J. Rosenberg, "Common Policy: A Document
              Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences", RFC 4745,
              February 2007.

   [Unicode]  "The Unicode Standard -- Worldwide Character Encoding --
              Version 1.0, Addison- Wesley, Volume 1, 1991, Volume 2",
               , 1992.








































Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 53]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


Appendix A.  Matching with Geopriv Requirements

   This section compares the requirements for a GEOPRIV Using Protocol,
   described in [RFC3693], against the approach of distributing Location
   Objects with RADIUS.

   In Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2 we discuss privacy implications when
   RADIUS entities make location information available to other parties.
   In Appendix A.3 the requirements are matched against these two
   scenarios.

A.1.  Distribution of Location Information at the User's Home Network

   When location information is conveyed from the RADIUS client to the
   RADIUS server then it might subsequently be made available for
   different purposes.  This section discusses the privacy implication
   for making location information available to other entities.

   To use a more generic scenario we assume that the visited RADIUS and
   the home RADIUS server belong to different administrative domains.
   The Location Recipient obtains location information about a
   particular Target via protocols specified outside the scope of this
   document (e.g., SIP, HTTP or an API).

   The subsequent figure shows the interacting entities graphically.


   visited network    |        home network
                      |
                      |        +----------+
                      |        |  Rule    |
                      |        | Holder   |
                      |        +----+-----+
                      |             |
                      |         rule|interface
    +----------+      |             V                     +----------+
    |Location  |      |        +----------+  notification |Location  |
    |Generator |      |        |Location  |<------------->|Recipient |
    +----------+  publication  |Server    |  interface    |          |
    |RADIUS    |<------------->+----------+               +----------+
    |Client    |  interface    |RADIUS    | E.g., SIP/HTTP
    +----------+      |        |Server    |
                      |        +----------+
    E.g., NAS       RADIUS
                      |
                      |

              Figure 19: Location Server at the Home Network



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 54]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   The term 'Rule Holder' in Figure 19 denotes the entity that creates
   the authorization rule set.

A.2.  Distribution of Location Information at the Visited Network

   This section describes a scenario where location information made
   available to Location Recipients by a Location Server in the visited
   network.  Some identifier needs to be used as an index within the
   location database.  One possible identifier is the Network Access
   Identifier.  RFC 4282 [RFC4282] and RFC 4372 [RFC4372] provide
   background whether entities in the visited network can obtain the
   user's NAI in cleartext.

   The visited network provides location information to a Location
   Recipient (e.g., via SIP or HTTP).  This document enables the NAS to
   obtain the user's privacy policy via the interaction with the RADIUS
   server.  Otherwise only default policies, which are very restrictive,
   are available.  This allows the Location Server in the visited
   network to ensure act according to the user's policies.

   The subsequent figure shows the interacting entities graphically.






























Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 55]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


    visited network    |        home network
                       |
     +----------+      |
     |Location  |      |
     |Recipient |      |
     |          |      |
     +----------+      |
          ^            |        +----------+
          |            |        |  Rule    |
      notification     |        | Holder   |
       interface       |        |          |
          |            |        +----+-----+
          |            |             |
          |            |         rule|interface
          v            |             |
     +----------+      |             |
     |Location  |      |             v
     |Server    |      |        +----------+
     +----------+ Rule Transport|RADIUS    |
     |RADIUS    |<------------->|Server    |
     |Client    |   RADIUS      +----------+
     +----------+      |
     |Location  |      |
     |Generator |
     +----------+

             Figure 20: Location Server at the Visited Network

   Location information always travels with privacy policies.  This
   document enables the RADIUS client to obtain these policies.  The
   Location Server can subsequently act according to these policies to
   provide access control using the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules and
   to adhere the privacy statements in the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules.

A.3.  Requirements matching

   Section 7.1 of [RFC3693] details the requirements of a "Location
   Object".  We discuss these requirements in the subsequent list.

   Req. 1.  (Location Object generalities):

      *  Regarding requirement 1.1, the syntax and semantic of the
         location object is taken from the [RFC3825] and [RFC4776].  It
         is furthermore possible to convert it to the format used in
         GMLv3 [GMLv3], as used with PIDF-LO [RFC4119].

      *  Regarding requirement 1.2, a number of fields in the civic
         location information format are optional.



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 56]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      *  Regarding requirement 1.3, the inclusion of type of place item
         (CAtype 29) used in the DHCP civic format gives a further
         classification of the location.  This attribute can be seen as
         an extension.

      *  Regarding requirement 1.4, this document does not define the
         format of the location information.

      *  Regarding requirement 1.5, location information is only sent
         from the RADIUS client to the RADIUS server.

      *  Regarding requirement 1.6, the Location Object contains both
         location information and privacy rules.  Location information
         is described in Section 4.2, in Section 4.3.1 and in
         Section 4.3.2.  The corresponding privacy rules are detailed in
         Section 4.4 and in Section 4.5.

      *  Regarding requirement 1.7, the Location Object is usable in a
         variety of protocols.  The format of the object is reused from
         other documents as detailed in Section 4.2, Section 4.3.1,
         Section 4.3.2 Section 4.4 and in Section 4.5).

      *  Regarding requirement 1.8, the encoding of the Location Object
         has an emphasis on a lightweight encoding format to be used
         with RADIUS.


   Req. 2.  (Location Object fields):

      *  Regarding requirement 2.1, the Target Identifier is carried
         within the network access authentication protocol (e.g., within
         the EAP-Identity Response when EAP is used and/or within the
         EAP method itself).  As described in Section 7.2 it has a
         number of advantages if this identifier is not carried in
         clear.  This is possible with certain EAP methods whereby the
         identity in the EAP-Identity Response only contains information
         relevant for routing the response to the user's home network.
         The user identity is protected by the authentication and key
         exchange protocol.

      *  Regarding requirement 2.2, the Location Recipient is in the
         main scenario the home RADIUS server.  For a scenario where the
         Location Recipient is obtaining Location Information from the
         Location Server via HTTP or SIP the respective mechanisms
         defined in these protocols are used to identify the recipient.
         The Location Generator cannot, a priori, know the recipients if
         they are not defined in this protocol.




Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 57]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      *  Regarding requirement 2.3, the credentials of the Location
         Recipient are known to the RADIUS entities based on the
         security mechanisms defined in the RADIUS protocol itself.
         Section 7 describes these security mechanisms offered by the
         RADIUS protocol.  The same is true for requirement 2.4.

      *  Regarding requirement 2.5, Section 4.2, Section 4.3.1 and
         Section 4.3.2 describe the content of the location fields.
         Since the location format itself is not defined in this
         document motion and direction vectors as listed in requirement
         2.6 are not defined.

      *  Regarding requirement 2.6, this document provides the
         capability for the RADIUS server to indicate what type of
         location information it would like to see from the RADIUS
         client.

      *  Regarding requirement 2.7, timing information is provided with
         'sighting time' and 'time-to-live' field defined in
         Section 4.2.

      *  Regarding requirement 2.8, a reference to an external (more
         detailed rule set) is provided with the Extended-Location-
         Policy-Rules attribute Section 4.5 .

      *  Regarding requirement 2.9, security headers and trailers are
         provided as part of the RADIUS protocol or even as part of
         IPsec.

      *  Regarding requirement 2.10, a version number in RADIUS is
         provided with the IANA registration of the attributes.  New
         attributes are assigned a new IANA number.


   Req. 3.  (Location Data Types):

      *  Regarding requirement 3.1, this document reuses civic and
         geospatial location information as described in Section 4.3.2
         and in Section 4.3.1.

      *  With the support of civic and geospatial location information
         support requirement 3.2 is fulfilled.

      *  Regarding requirement 3.3, the geospatial location information
         used by this document only refers to absolute coordinates.
         However, the granularity of the location information can be
         reduced with the help of the AltRes, LoRes, LaRes fields
         described in [RFC3825].



Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 58]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


      *  Regarding requirement 3.4, further Location Data Types can be
         added via new coordinate reference systems (CRSs) (see Datum
         field in [RFC3825]) and via extensions to [RFC3825] and
         [RFC4776].

   Section 7.2 of [RFC3693] details the requirements of a "Using
   Protocol".  These requirements are listed below:


   Req. 4.:  The using protocol has to obey the privacy and security
      instructions coded in the Location Object regarding the
      transmission and storage of the LO.  This document requires that
      entities that aim to make location information available to third
      parties are required to obey the privacy instructions.


   Req. 5.:  The using protocol will typically facilitate that the keys
      associated with the credentials are transported to the respective
      parties, that is, key establishment is the responsibility of the
      using protocol.  Section 7 specifies how security mechanisms are
      used in RADIUS and how they can be reused to provide security
      protection for the Location Object.  Additionally, the privacy
      considerations (see Section 7.2) are also relevant for this
      requirement.


   Req. 6.  (Single Message Transfer):  In particular, for tracking of
      small target devices, the design should allow a single message/
      packet transmission of location as a complete transaction.  The
      encoding of the Location Object is specifically tailored towards
      the inclusion into a single message that even respects the (Path)
      MTU size.

   Section 7.3 of [RFC3693] details the requirements of a "Rule based
   Location Data Transfer".  These requirements are listed below:


   Req. 7.  (LS Rules):  With the scenario shown in Figure 19 the
      decision of a Location Server to provide a Location Recipient
      access to location information is based on Rule Maker-defined
      Privacy Rules that are stored at the home network.  With regard to
      the scenario shown in Figure 20 the Rule Maker-defined Privacy
      Rules are sent from the RADIUS server to the NAS (see Section 4.4,
      Section 4.5 and Section 7.2 for more details).







Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 59]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Req. 8.  (LG Rules):  For all usage scenario it is possible to
      consider the privacy rule before transmitting location information
      from the NAS to the RADIUS server or even to third parties.  In
      the case of an out-of-band agreement between the owner of the NAS
      and the owner of the RADIUS server privacy might be applied on a
      higher granularity.  For the scenario shown in Figure 19 the
      visited network is already in possession of the users location
      information prior to the authentication and authorization of the
      user.  A correlation between the location and the user identity
      might, however, still not be possible for the visited network (as
      explained in Section 7.2).  A Location Server in the visited
      network has to evaluate available rulesets.


   Req. 9.  (Viewer Rules):  The Rule Maker might define (via mechanisms
      outside the scope of this document) which policy rules are
      disclosed to other entities.


   Req. 10.  (Full Rule language):  Geopriv has defined a rule language
      capable of expressing a wide range of privacy rules which is
      applicable in the area of the distribution of Location Objects.  A
      basic ruleset is provided with the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
      Attribute Section 4.4.  A reference to the extended ruleset is
      carried in Section 4.5.  The format of these rules are described
      in [RFC4745] and [I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy].


   Req. 11.  (Limited Rule language):  A limited (or basic) ruleset is
      provided by the Policy-Information Attribute Section 4.4 (and as
      introduced with PIDF-LO [RFC4119]).

   Section 7.4 of [RFC3693] details the requirements of a "Location
   Object Privacy and Security".  These requirements are listed below:


   Req. 12 (Identity Protection):  Support for unlinkable pseudonyms is
      provided by the usage of a corresponding authentication and key
      exchange protocol.  Such protocols are available, for example,
      with the support of EAP as network access authentication methods.
      Some EAP methods support passive user identity confidentiality
      whereas others even support active user identity confidentiality.
      This issue is further discussed in Section 7.  The importance for
      user identity confidentiality and identity protection has already
      been recognized as an important property (see, for example, a
      document on 'EAP Method Requirements for Wireless LANs'
      [RFC4017]).




Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 60]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


   Req. 13.  (Credential Requirements):  As described in Section 7
      RADIUS signaling messages can be protected with IPsec.  This
      allows a number of authentication and key exchange protocols to be
      used as part of IKE, IKEv2 or KINK.


   Req. 14.  (Security Features):  Geopriv defines a few security
      requirements for the protection of Location Objects, such as
      mutual end-point authentication, data object integrity, data
      object confidentiality and replay protection.  As described in
      Section 7 these requirements are fulfilled with the usage of IPsec
      if mutual authentication refers to the RADIUS entities (acting as
      various Geopriv entities) which directly communicate with each
      other.


   Req. 15.  (Minimal Crypto):  A minimum of security mechanisms are
      mandated by the usage of RADIUS.  Communication security for
      Location Objects between RADIUS infrastructure elements is
      provided by the RADIUS protocol (including IPsec and its dynamic
      key management framework) rather than on relying on object
      security via S/SIME (which is not available with RADIUS).





























Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 61]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 2007


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.com


   Farid Adrangi
   Intel Corporatation
   2111 N.E. 25th Avenue
   Hillsboro OR
   USA

   Email: farid.adrangi@intel.com


   Mark Jones
   Bridgewater Systems Corporation
   303 Terry Fox Drive
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2K 3J1
   CANADA

   Email: mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com


   Avi Lior
   Bridgewater Systems Corporation
   303 Terry Fox Drive
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2K 3J1
   CANADA

   Email: avi@bridgewatersystems.com


   Bernard Aboba
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   US

   Email: bernarda@microsoft.com





Tschofenig, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 62]


Internet-Draft     Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter       August 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, et al.      Expires February 27, 2008              [Page 63]


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