[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

GEOPRIV WG                                                   J. Peterson
Internet-Draft                                                   NeuStar
Expires: December 21, 2003                                 June 22, 2003

            A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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-

   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://

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.


   This document describes a object format for carrying geographical
   information on the Internet.  This location object extends the
   Presence Information Data Format (PIDF), which was designed for
   communicating privacy-sensitive presence information and has similar

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    Location Object Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1   Baseline PIDF Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2   Extensions to PIDF for Location and Privacy Policy . . . . .  5
   2.2.1 'location-info' element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2.2 'usage-rules' element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.2.3 Schema definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.3   Example Location Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.    Carrying PIDF in a Using Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.    Securing PIDF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.    IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.1   URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
         urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
         Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   A.    To Do and Unmet requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
         Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   B.    Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
         Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

1. Introduction

   Geographical location information describes a physical position in
   the world that may correspond to the past, present or future location
   of a person or device.  Numerous applications used in the Internet
   today benefit from sharing location information (including mapping/
   navigation applications, 'friend finders' on cell phones, and so on).
   However, such applications may disclose the whereabouts of a person
   in a manner contrary to the user's preferences.  Privacy lapses may
   result from poor protocol security (which permits eavesdroppers to
   capture location information), inability to articulate or accommodate
   user preferences, or similar defects common in existing systems.  The
   privacy concerns surrounding the unwanted disclosure of a person's
   physical location are among the more serious that confront users on
   the Internet.

   Consequently, a need has been identified to convey geographical
   location information within an object that includes a user's privacy
   and disclosure preferences and which is protected by strong
   cryptographic security.  Previous work [11] has observed that this
   problem bears some resembles to the general problem of communicating
   and securing presence information on the Internet.  Presence (which
   is defined in [10]) provides a real-time communications disposition
   to a user that have similar requirements for selective distribution
   and security.

   Therefore, this document extends the XML-based Presence Information
   Data Format (PIDF [2]) to allow the encapsulation of location
   information within a presence document.

   This document does not invent any format for location information
   itself.  Numerous already existing formats based on civil location,
   spatial coordinates, and the like have been developed in other
   standards fora.  Instead, this document defines an object that is
   suitable for both identifying and encapsulating pre-existing location
   information formats and for providing adequate security and policy
   controls to regulate the distribution of location information over
   the Internet.

   The location object described in this document can be used
   independently of any 'using protocol' as the term is defined in the
   GEOPRIV requirements [8].  It is considered an advantage of this
   proposal that existing presence protocols (such as [13]) would
   natively accommodate the location object format defined in this
   document, and be capable of composing location information with other
   presence information, since this location object is an extension of
   PIDF.  However, any protocol that can carry XML or MIME types can
   carry PIDF.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

   Some of the requirements in [8] concern data collection and usage
   policies associated with location objects.  This document does not
   provide a markup suitable for a user to express the necessary privacy
   preferences as specified by the geopriv requirements.  However, this
   document does demonstrate how an XML-based privacy preference
   document could be embedded within a PIDF document.

2. Location Object Format

2.1 Baseline PIDF Usage

   The GEOPRIV requirements [8] (or REQ for short throughout this
   section) specify the need for a name for the person, place or thing
   that location information describes (REQ 2.1).  PIDF has such an
   identifier already, since every PIDF document has "entity" attribute
   of the "presence" element that signifies the URI of the entity whose
   presence the document describes.  Similarly, if location information
   is contained in a PIDF document, the URI in the "entity" attribute of
   the "presence" element indicates the target of that location
   information.  The URI in the "entity" attribute should use the "pres"
   URI scheme defined in [3].  URIs can serve as "unlinkable pseudonyms"
   (per REQ 12).

   PIDF optionally contains a "contact" element that contains a URI
   where the presentity can be reached by some means of communication
   (usually, the URI scheme in the value of the "contact" element gives
   some sense of how the presentity can be reached: if it uses the SIP
   URI scheme, for example, SIP can be used, and so on).  Location
   information can be provided without any associated means of
   communication - thus, the "contact" element may or may not be
   present, as desired by the creator of the PIDF document.

   PIDF optionally contains a "timestamp" element that designates the
   time at which the PIDF was created.  This element corresponds to REQ

   PIDF contains a "status" element, which is mandatory.  "status"
   contains an optional child element "basic" that describes the
   presentity's communications disposition (in the very broad terms:
   either OPEN or CLOSED).  For the purposes of this document, it is not
   necessary for "basic" status to be included.  If, however,
   communications disposition is included in a PIDF document above and
   beyond geolocation, then "basic" status may appear in a PIDF document
   that uses these extensions.

   PIDF also contains a "tuple" element, which is used to uniquely
   identify a segment of presence information so that changes to this

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

   information can be tracked over time (as multiple notifications of
   presence are received).

2.2 Extensions to PIDF for Location and Privacy Policy

   This XML Schema extends the "status" element of PIDF with a complex
   element called "geopriv".  There are two major subelements that are
   encapsulated within geopriv: one for location information, and one
   for usage rules.  Both of these subelements are mandatory, and are
   described in subsequent sections.

   There are also a few other elements which are contained within the
   geopriv element in support of the GEOPRIV requirements.

2.2.1 'location-info' element

   Each 'geopriv' element MUST contain one 'location-info' element.  A
   'location-info' element consists of one or more chunks of location
   information (per REQ 2.5).  The format of the location information
   (REQ 2.6) is identified by the imported XML Schema describing the
   namespace in question.  All PIDF documents that contain a 'geopriv'
   element MUST contain one or more import directive indicating the XML
   Schema(s) that will be used as geolocation formats.

   In order to ensure interoperability of GEOPRIV implementations, it is
   necessary to select a baseline location format that all compliant
   implementations support (see REQ 3.1).  At this time, there is not
   sufficient working group consensus within the GEOPRIV WG to award
   this distinction to any particular location format.  Without applying
   any particular selection criteria (apart from REQs 2.5.1), this
   document works from the assumption that GML 3.0 [14] will be this
   mandatory format (MUST implement for all PIDF implementations
   supporting the 'geopriv' element).

   The Geography Markup Language (GML) is an extraordinarily thorough
   and versatile system for modeling all manner of geographic topologies
   and objects.  The simplest package for GML supporting location
   information is the 'feature.xsd' schema.  Various format descriptions
   (including latitude/longitude based location information) is
   supported by Feature (see section of [14] for examples).
   This resides here:


   Note that by importing the Feature schema, necessary GML baseline
   schemas are transitively imported.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

   Complex features (such as modeling topologies and polygons,
   directions and vectors, temporal indications of the time for which a
   particular location is valid for a target) are also available in GML,
   but require importing additional schemas.  For the purposes of this
   document, only support for the feature.xsd GML schema is REQUIRED.

2.2.2 'usage-rules' element

   At the time this document was written, the policy requirements for
   GEOPRIV objects were not definitively completed.  However, the
   'usage-rules' element exists to satisfy REQ 2.8, and the requirements
   of the GEOPRIV policy requirements [9] document.  Each 'geopriv'
   element SHOULD contain one 'usage-rules' element - Location
   Generators MAY not include this element ONLY IF users have
   specifically requested that all sub-elements given below are
   unnecessary to protect this Location Object.

   Following to that document (Section 3.1), there are three fields that
   need to be expressible in Location Objects throughout their lifecycle
   (from Generator to Recipient):  one field that limit retransmission,
   one that limit retention, and one that contains a reference to
   external rulesets.  Those three fields are instantiated here by the
   first three elements.  The fourth element provides a generic space
   for human-readable policy directives.  Any of these fields MAY be
   present in a Location Object 'usage-rules' element; none are required
   to be.

      'retransmission-allowed': When the value of this element is 'no',
      the Recipient of this Location Object is not permitted to share
      the enclosed Location Information, or the object as a whole, with
      other parties.  When the value of this element is 'yes', sharing
      this Location Object or information is permitted (barring an
      existing agreement or obligation to the contrary).  By default,
      the value MUST be assumed to be 'no'.  Implementations MUST
      include this field, with a value of 'no', if the Rule Maker
      specifies no preference.

      'retention-expires': This field specifies an absolute date at
      which time the Recipient is no longer permitted to possess the
      location information and its encapsulating Location Object - both
      may be retained only up until the time specified by this field.
      By default, the value MUST be assumed to be twenty-four hours from
      the 'timestamp' element in the PIDF document, if present; if the
      'timestamp' element is not present, then twenty-four hours from
      the time at which the Location Object is received.  If the value
      in the 'retention-expires' element has already passed when the
      Location Recipient receives the Location Object, the Recipient
      MUST discard the Location Object immediately.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

      'ruleset-reference': This field contains a URI to a network server
      that holds rules appropriate for this Location Object.  This
      SHOULD be an HTTPS URI, and the server that holds these rules MUST
      authenticate any attempt to access these rules - usage rules
      themselves may divulge private information about a Target or Rule
      Maker.  Location Recipients SHOULD NOT attempt to dereference this
      URI - it is intended only for the consumption of Location Servers.

      'note-well': This field contains a block of text containing
      further generic privacy directives.  These directives are intended
      to be human-readable only, not to be processed by any automaton.

2.2.3 Schema definition

   Note that the XML namespace [4] for this extension to PIDF contains a
   version number 1.0 (as per REQ 2.10).

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
     elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
      <xs:complexType name="geopriv">
         <xs:element name="location-info" type="tns:locInfoType"
            minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="usage-rules" type="tns:locPolicyType"
            minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"

      <xs:complexType name="locInfoType">
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"

      <xs:complexType name="locPolicyType">
         <xs:element name="retransmission-allowed" type="tns:retrans"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="retention-expiry" type="xs:dateTime"

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="retention-expiry" type="xs:anyURI"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="note-well" type="tns:notewell"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"

        <xs:simpleType name="retrans">
          <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
            <xs:enumeration value="yes"/>
            <xs:enumeration value="no"/>

        <xs:complexType name="notewell">
            <xs:extension base="xs:string">
              <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang"/>


2.3 Example Location Object

   The following XML instance document is an example of the use of a
   simple GML 3.0 markup with a few of the policy directives specified
   above within a PIDF document.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
     <tuple id="sg89ae">
             <gml:Point gml:id="point96" srsName="epsg:4326">
               <gml:coordinates>31:56:00S 115:50:00E</gml:coordinates>

   Note that this shows a PIDF document without any MIME headers or
   security applied to it (see Section 4 below).

3. Carrying PIDF in a Using Protocol

   A PIDF document is an XML document, and therefore PIDF might be
   carried in any protocol that is capable of carrying XML.  A MIME type
   has also been registered for PIDF: 'application/cpim-pidf+xml'.  PIDF
   may therefore be carried as a MIME body in protocols that use MIME
   (such as SMTP, HTTP, or SIP) with an encapsulating set of MIME
   headers, including a Content-Type of 'application/cpim-pidf+xml".

   Further specification of the behavior of using protocols (including
   subscribing to or requesting presence information) is outside the
   scope of this document.

4. Securing PIDF

   There are a number of ways in which XML documents can be secured.
   XML itself supports several ways of partially securing documents,
   including element-level encryption and digital signature properties.

   For the purposes of this document, only the securing of a PIDF

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

   document as a whole, rather than element-by-element security, is
   considered.  None of the requirements [8] suggest that only part of
   the information in a location object might need to be protected while
   other parts are unprotected - virtually any such configuration would
   introduce potentials for privacy leakage.  Consequently, the use of
   MIME-level security is appropriate.

   S/MIME [5] allows security properties (including confidentiality,
   integrity and authentication properties) to be applied to the
   contents of a MIME body.  Therefore, all PIDF implementations that
   support the XML Schema extensions for location information described
   in this document MUST support S/MIME, and in particular must support
   the CMS [6] EnvelopedData and SignedData messages, which are used for
   encryption and digital signatures respectively.  It is believed that
   this mechanism meets REQs 2.10, 13, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4.

   Additionally, all implementations MUST implement the AES encryption
   algorithm for S/MIME, as specified in [7] (and per REQ 15.1).  Of
   course, implementations MUST also support the baseline encryption and
   digital signature algorithms described in the S/MIME specification.

   S/MIME generally entails the use of X.509 [16] certificates.  In
   order to encrypt a request for a particular destination end-to-end
   (i.e.  to a Location Recipient), the Location Generator must possess
   credentials (typically an X.509 certificate) that have been issued to
   the Location Recipient.

   S/MIME was designed for end-to-end security between email peers that
   communicate through multiple servers (i.e mail transfer agents) that
   do not modify message bodies.  There is, however, at least one
   instance in which Location Servers modify Location Objects - namely
   when Location Servers enforce policies on behalf of the Rule Maker.
   For example, a Rule Maker may specify that Location Information
   should be coarsened (made less specific) before it is transmitted to
   particular recipients.  If the Location Server were unable to modify
   a Location Object, because it was encrypted, signed, or both, it
   would be unable to accomplish this function.  Consequently, when a
   Location Generator wants to allow a Location Server to modify such
   messages, they MAY encrypt such messages with keys issued to the
   Location Server (the signature, of course, can still be created with
   keying material from the Location Generator's certificate).  After
   modifying the Location Object, the Location Server can resign the
   Object with its own credentials (encrypting it with any keys issued
   to the Location Recipient, if they are known to the Server).

   Note that policies for data collection and usage of location
   information, in so far as they are carried within a location object,
   are discussed in Section 2.2.2.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

5. Security Considerations

   The threats to which an Internet service carrying geolocation might
   be subjected are detailed in [15].  The requirements that were
   identified in that analysis of the threat model were incorporated
   into [8], in particular within Section 7.4.  This document aims to be
   compliant with the security requirements derived from those two
   undertakings in so far as they apply to the location object itself.

   Security of the location object defined in this document, including
   normative requirements for implementations, is discussed in Section
   4.  This security focuses on end-to-end integrity and confidentiality
   properties that are applied to a location object for its lifetime via

   Security requirements associated with using protocols (including
   authentication of subscribers to geographical information, and so on)
   are outside the scope of this document.

6. IANA Considerations

6.1 URN Sub-Namespace Registration for

   This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in

      URI: The URI for this namespace is

      Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
      (geopriv@ietf.org), Jon Peterson (jon.peterson@neustar.biz).


Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

                <?xml version="1.0"?>
                <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
                <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                  <meta http-equiv="content-type"
                  <title>GEOPRIV PIDF Extensions</title>
                  <h1>PIDF Extensions of Geographical Information and Privacy</h1>
                  <p>See <a href="[[[URL of published RFC]]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>

Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
        levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W. and
        J. Peterson, "CPIM Presence Information Data Format", draft-
        ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-07 (work in progress), August 2001.

   [3]  Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", draft-ietf-
        impp-pres-03 (work in progress), May 2003.

   [4]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", draft-mealling-iana-
        xmlns-registry-05 (work in progress), June 2003.

   [5]  Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", draft-
        ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-03 (work in progress), January 2003.

   [6]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 3369, August

   [7]  Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Use of the AES Encryption Algorithm
        and RSA-OAEP Key Transport in CMS", draft-ietf-smime-aes-alg-06
        (work in progress), January 2003.

Informative References

   [8]   Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J. and J.
         Polk, "Geopriv requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-reqs-03 (work
         in progress), February 2003.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

   [9]   Morris, J., Mulligan, D. and J. Cuellar, "Core Privacy
         Protections for Geopriv Location Object", draft-morris-geopriv-
         core-01 (work in progress), March 2003.

   [10]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J. and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and
         Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

   [11]  Peterson, J., "A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of
         Geopriv Location Objects", draft-peterson-geopriv-pres-00 (work
         in progress), February 20003.

   [12]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August

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

   [14]  OpenGIS, "", OGC 02-023r4, January 2003, <http:// http://

   [15]  Danley, M., Morris, J., Mulligan, D. and J. Peterson, "Threat
         Analysis of the geopriv Protocol", draft-ietf-geopriv-threats-
         00 (work in progress), February 2003.

   [16]  ITU-T, "Recommendation X.509 - Open Systems Interconnection -
         The Directory: Authentication", ITU-T X.509, June 1997, <http:/
         / http://www.itu.int>.

   [17]  Gutmann, P., "Password-based Encryption for CMS", RFC 3211,
         December 2001.

Author's Address

   Jon Peterson
   NeuStar, Inc.
   1800 Sutter St
   Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520

   Phone: +1 925/363-8720
   EMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
   URI:   http://www.neustar.biz/

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

Appendix A. To Do and Unmet requirements

   Today, this document makes a very half-hearted recommendation for
   GML3.0 as the mandatory-to-implement geolocation format for Location
   Objects.  Much more discussion is needed of the merits and flaws of
   this approach.  We also need to identify an appropriate worldwide
   postal address format (surely there are existing XML standards for
   this that we can reuse).

   Below are various GEOPRIV requirements [8] that currently are not met
   by this document.  These requirements may be met in future versions
   of the document.

      REQ 1.5: Requesting location information is deferred to the using
      protocol in this paradigm of GEOPRIV.  The Location Object
      contains no support for this feature either way.

      REQ 1.8: The S/MIME mechanism in this document, in so far as it
      uses X.509, may be too heavyweight to accommodate constrained
      devices with little memory or processing power.  There are
      variants of S/MIME that do not use certificates for various
      security function, but instead use symmetric keys (see [17]), and
      which would consequently be a better fit for constrained devices.

      REQ 2.2: The identity of the Location Recipient should not have to
      be known to the Location Generator - it is possible that the
      Generator publishes its location information to a Location Server
      that enforces policies relevant to various Recipients without
      informing the Generator that location information has been
      requested.  Carrying the identity of the recipient is deferred to
      the using protocol in this paradigm of GEOPRIV.

      REQ 2.3 & 2.4: These requirements would need to be further
      specified before it would be possible for a solution document to
      satisfy them.  It is not clear what these credentials are, nor why
      the Location Generator would possess them and place them inside
      Location Objects.

   XML Schemas and examples have not been validated.

Appendix B. Acknowledgments

   This document was produced with the assistance of many members of the
   GEOPRIV IETF working group.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            GEOPRIV Location Obj                 June 2003

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Peterson               Expires December 21, 2003               [Page 15]

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