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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery

GEOPRIV                                                       M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                           J. Winterbottom
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Andrew
Expires: August 22, 2007                               February 18, 2007


        Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS)
               draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-00.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 August 22, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).














Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


Abstract

   A method is described for the discovery of a Location Information
   Server.  The method consists of attempting to use a Dynamic Host
   Configuration Protocol (DHCP) option, followed by a URI-enabled NAPTR
   (U-NAPTR).  DHCP options are defined for both IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP.
   This document also defines a U-NAPTR Application Service for a LIS,
   with a specific Application Protocol for the HTTP Enabled Location
   Delivery (HELD) protocol.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  DHCP Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  U-NAPTR Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  LIS Discovery Using DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Determining the Access Network Domain Name . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  DHCP Domain Name Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Reverse DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1.  Determining an External IP Address . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes . . . . . . 12
     6.2.  Registration of a Location Server Application Service
           Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.3.  Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol
           Tag for HELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18













Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


1.  Introduction and Overview

   Discovering a Location Information Server (LIS) is an important part
   of the location acquisition process.  The LIS is an access network
   service that needs to be discovered before it can be used.  This
   document describes a method that a host can use to discover a URI for
   a LIS.

   The product of a discovery process, such as the one described in this
   document, is the address of the service.  In this document, the
   result is a URI, which identifies a LIS.  A URI permits
   identification of a LIS that includes information about protocols and
   other supplementary information.

   The discovery process requires that the host first attempt LIS
   discovery using Dynamic Host Configuration protocol (DHCP).  If DHCP
   is not available, or the option is not supported by the network, the
   host attempts to discover the LIS using the DNS and URI-enabled
   Naming Authority Pointer (U-NAPTR).  Finally, the host can rely on
   proprietary methods for determining the address of the LIS, including
   static configuration.

1.1.  DHCP Discovery

   DHCP ([RFC2131], [RFC3315]) is a commonly used mechanism for
   providing bootstrap configuration information allowing a host to
   operate in a specific network environment.  The bulk of DHCP
   information is largely static; consisting of configuration
   information that does not change over the period that the host is
   attached to the network.  Physical location information might change
   over this time, however the address of the LIS does not.  Thus, DHCP
   is suitable for configuring a host with the address of a LIS.

1.2.  U-NAPTR Discovery

   Where DHCP is not available, the DNS might be able to provide a URI.
   For DNS methods, alternative discovery techniques SRV records
   [RFC2782] or Straightforward NAPTR (S-NAPTR) [RFC3958] cannot be
   used; these methods only permit the return of a hostname and port,
   not a URI.  URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) [I-D.daigle-unaptr], which is
   based on S-NAPTR, describes a method of applying the Dynamic
   Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS) for URI results.

   For the LIS discovery DDDS application, an Application Service tag
   "LIS" and an Application Protocol tag "HELD" are created and
   registered with the IANA.  Taking a domain name, this U-NAPTR
   application uses the two tags to determine the LIS URI.




Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


   Determining the domain name to be used is a critical part of the
   resolution process.  The second part of this document describes how a
   domain name can be derived.  Several methods are described that
   address different scenarios.

1.3.  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].

   This document also uses the term "host" to refer to an end host, or
   Target (in RFC3693 [RFC3693] parlance).  The terms "access network"
   refers to the network that a host connects to for Internet access.
   The "access network provider" is the entity that operates the access
   network.  The access network provider is responsible for allocating
   the host an IP address and for directly or indirectly providing a LIS
   service.

































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


2.  LIS Discovery Using DHCP

   Where DHCP is available, a host SHOULD attempt to use DHCP to
   discover the LIS.  If the DHCP method fails, the host SHOULD attempt
   the DNS/U-NAPTR method described in Section 3 or it MAY resort to a
   configured address.

   TBD: If multiple protocols can be indicated by these options, how
   does the host know which protocol is in use?  Is there any sense in
   providing multiple responses for multiple protocols?  Possible
   solution is to reuse the application protocol tag from the U-NAPTR
   section.

2.1.  DHCPv4 Option for a LIS Address

   This section defines a DHCP for IPv4 (DHCPv4) option for the address
   of a LIS.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    LIS_URI    |    Length     |         URI ...               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              URI                            ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   LIS_URI:  The IANA assigned option number (TBD).

   Length:  The length of the URI in octets.

   URI:  The address of the LIS.  This URI SHOULD NOT be more than 253
      bytes in length, but MAY be extended by concatenating multiple
      option values, as described in [RFC3396].  The URI MUST NOT be
      NULL terminated.

2.2.  DHCPv6 Option for a LIS Address

   This section defines a DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for the address
   of a LIS.  The DHCPv6 option for this parameter is similarly
   formatted to the DHCPv4 option.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       OPTION_LIS_URI          |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              URI                            ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


   OPTION_LIS_URI:  The IANA assigned option number (TBD).

   Length:  The length of the URI in octets.

   URI:  The address of the LIS.  The URI MUST NOT be NULL terminated.














































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


3.  U-NAPTR for LIS Discovery

   U-NAPTR resolution for a LIS takes a domain name as input and
   produces a URI that identifies the LIS.  This process also requires
   an Application Service tag and an Application Protocol tag, which
   differentiate LIS-related NAPTR records from other records for that
   domain.

   Section 6.2 defines an Application Service tag of "LIS", which is
   used to identify the location service for a particular domain.  The
   Application Protocol tag "HELD", defined in Section 6.3, is used to
   identify a LIS that understands the HELD protocol
   [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery].

   The NAPTR records in the following example demonstrate the use of the
   Application Service and Protocol tags.  Iterative NAPTR resolution is
   used to delegate responsibility for the LIS service from
   "zonea.example.com" and "zoneb.example.com" to "example.com".

      zonea.example.com.
      ;;       order pref flags
      IN NAPTR 100   10   ""  "LIS:HELD" (         ; service
          ""                                       ; regex
          example.com.                             ; replacement
          )
      zoneb.example.com.
      ;;       order pref flags
      IN NAPTR 100   10   ""  "LIS:HELD" (         ; service
          ""                                       ; regex
          example.com.                             ; replacement
          )
      example.com.
      ;;       order pref flags
      IN NAPTR 100   10   "u"  "LIS:HELD" (        ; service
          "!*.!https://lis.example.com/!"          ; regex
          .                                        ; replacement
          )


   Details for the "LIS" Application Service tag and the "HELD"
   Application Protocol tag are included in Section 6.










Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


4.  Determining the Access Network Domain Name

   The U-NAPTR discovery method described in Section 3 requires that the
   domain name applicable to the access network is known.  An
   unconfigured host might not have this information, therefore it must
   determine this value before the U-NAPTR method can be attempted.

   This section describes several methods for discovering a domain name
   for the local access network.  Each method should be attempted where
   applicable until a domain name is derived.  If a domain name is
   successfully derived but that domain name does not produce any
   U-NAPTR records, alternative methods can be attempted.  Reattempting
   with different methods is particularly applicable when NAT is used,
   as is shown in Section 4.2.1.

4.1.  DHCP Domain Name Option

   For IP version 4, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) option
   15 [RFC2131] includes the domain name suffix for the host.  If DHCP
   and option 15 are available, this value should be used as input the
   U-NAPTR procedure.

   DHCP for IPv6 provides a single domain name suffix that can be used
   in the same manner, as a described in
   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain].

   Alternatively, a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) for the host
   might be provided by the server ([RFC4702] for DHCPv4, [RFC4704] for
   DHCPv6).  This domain name can be used as input to the U-NAPTR
   resolution is derived from the FQDN by removing the first label.  If
   the host has provided a fully qualified domain name using this
   option, it SHOULD NOT be used - the domain known to the host might
   not be the same as that of the access network.

   Either DHCP method SHOULD be attempted first if DHCP is available.
   Note that this method is only attempted if the LIS address option is
   not available.

4.2.  Reverse DNS

   DNS "PTR" records in the "in-addr.arpa." domain can be used to
   determine the domain name of a host, and therefore, the name of the
   domain for that host.  The use of the "in-addr.arpa." domain is
   described in [RFC1034] and results in the domain name of the host.
   Likewise, IPv6 hosts use the "ip6.arpa." domain.  In the majority of
   cases, the domain part of this name (everything excluding the first
   label) is also the domain name for the access network.  Assuming that
   this is true, this domain name can be used as input to the U-NAPTR



Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


   process.

   For example, if the for "10.1.2.3" address, if the "PTR" record at
   "3.2.1.10.in-addr.arpa." refers to "host.example.com", this results
   in a U-NAPTR search for "example.com".

   The DNS hierarchy does not necessarily directly map onto a network
   topology (see [RFC4367]; therefore, this method MUST only be used for
   the domain name determined by removing the first label only.  This
   method assumes that the access network provider also provides the
   reverse DNS record and they control the domain that is indicated in
   the "PTR" record.

   Furthermore, this method might not apply where a host is given a
   domain name that is different from the domain name of the access
   network.  This might occur in some hosting configurations, such as
   where a number of web server hosts, with widely varying domain names,
   are co-located.  From the above example, the access network provider
   allocated "10.1.2.3" to the host; therefore, they also need to
   control the DNS domain "example.com" and the associated NAPTR
   records.  DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033] provides a
   cryptographic means of validating this association, through data
   origin authentication.

4.2.1.  Determining an External IP Address

   Reverse DNS relies on knowing the IP address of a host within the
   access domain.  Initially, this SHOULD be attempted using the IP
   address that is assigned to a local interface on the host.  However,
   when a NAT device is used, the IP address of the NAT device is
   substituted for the source IP address.  If a NAT device exists
   between the host and the access network, the host does not have any
   direct way to determine the IP address that it is effectively using
   within the access network.  The IP address of the NAT device and the
   corresponding domain name can be used to discover the LIS.

   In order to use reverse DNS in this configuration, the hosts need to
   know the IP address that the NAT device uses.  The following sections
   describe some possible methods.

   These methods are particularly useful in residential broadband
   configurations.  A large proportion of residential broadband services
   employ a NAT device so that several hosts can share the same Internet
   access.  Since the network behind the NAT device are generally very
   small, both in numbers and geographical area, it isn't necessary for
   a LIS to operate within that network; the hosts are able to access a
   LIS in the access network outside of the NAT device.




Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


4.2.1.1.  UPnP

   If a NAT device complies with the Universal Plug and Play (UPnP)
   specification [UPnP-IGD-WANIPConnection1], the WANIPConnection part
   can be used to query the device for its public IP address.  The
   "GetExternalIPAddress" function provides the external address for a
   particular network connection.

   UPnP defines a method for discovering UPnP-enabled hosts in a
   network; the host does not need any prior configuration to employ
   this method.

4.2.1.2.  STUN

   A host can use the Simple Traversal of UDP NATs (STUN)
   [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] to determine a public IP address.  The
   host uses the "Binding Request" message and the resulting
   "MAPPED-ADDRESS" parameter that is returned in the response.

   Using STUN requires cooperation from a publicly accessible STUN
   server.  A domain name needs to be configured at the host for STUN
   server discovery.

4.2.1.3.  Other Options

   The source IP address in any IP packet can be used to determine the
   public IP address of a host.  While the STUN method uses a small part
   of a more sophisticated protocol, this principle can be applied using
   any other protocol.  Like STUN, this method requires prior knowledge
   of the publicly accessible server and the method that it supports.

   For instance, a publicly accessible host could be configured to
   respond to a UDP packet on a predefined port; the data of the
   response could contain the source IP address that was in the request.

   Alternatively, a HTTP server at a particular URL could be configured
   to respond to a GET request with a "text/plain" body containing the
   IP address of the requester.  HTTP proxies render this method
   unusable; in particular, transparent HTTP proxies might affect the
   results of this method without the knowledge of the host.











Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


5.  Security Considerations

   The primary attack against the methods described in this document is
   one that would lead to impersonation of a LIS.  The LIS is
   responsible for providing location information and this information
   is critical to a number of network services; furthermore, a host does
   not necessarily have a prior relationship with a LIS.  Several
   methods are described here that can limit the probablity of, or
   provide some protection against, such an attack.

   The address of a LIS is usually well-known within an access network;
   therefore, interception of messages does not introduce any specific
   concerns.

   If DHCP is used, the integrity of DHCP options is limited by the
   security of the channel over which they are provided.  Physical
   security and separation of DHCP messages from other packets are
   commonplace methods that can reduce the possibility of attack within
   an access network; alternatively, DHCP authentication [RFC3118] can
   provide a degree of protection against modification.

   An attacker could attempt to compromise the U-NAPTR resolution.  A
   description of the security considerations for U-NAPTR applications
   is included in [I-D.daigle-unaptr].

   In addition to considerations related to U-NAPTR, it is important to
   recognize that the output of this is entirely dependent on its input.
   An attacker who can control the domain name can also control the
   final URI.  Because a number of methods are provided for determining
   the domain name, a host implementation needs to consider attacks
   against each of the methods that are used.

   Reverse DNS is subject to the maintenance of the "in-addr.arpa." or
   "ip6.arpa." domain and the integrity of the results that it provides.
   DNSSEC [RFC4033] provides some measures that can improve the
   reliability of DNS results.  In particular, DNSSEC SHOULD be applied
   to ensure that the reverse DNS record and the resulting domain are
   provided by the same entity before this method is used.  Without this
   assurance, the host cannot be certain that the access network
   provider has provided the NAPTR record for the domain name that is
   provided.

   Hosts behind NAT devices are also subject to attacks when retrieving
   their public IP address.  [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis] describes some
   means of mitigating this attack for STUN.






Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes

   The IANA is requested to assign an option code for the DHCPv4 option
   for a LIS address, as described in Section 2.1 of this document.

   The IANA is requested to assign an option code for the DHCPv6 option
   for a LIS address, as described in Section 2.2 of this document.

6.2.  Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag

   This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Service tag
   for a LIS, as mandated by [RFC3958].

   Application Service Tag:  LIS

   Intended usage:  Identifies a service that provides a host with its
      location information.

   Defining publication:  RFCXXXX

   Related publications:  HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]

   Contact information:  The authors of this document

   Author/Change controller:  The IESG

6.3.  Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for
      HELD

   This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Protocol tag
   for the HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery] protocol, as
   mandated by [RFC3958].

   Application Service Tag:  HELD

   Intended Usage:  Identifies the HELD protocol.

   Applicable Service Tag(s):  LIS

   Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s):  U

   Defining Publication:  RFCXXXX







Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


   Related Publications:  HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]

   Contact Information:  The authors of this document

   Author/Change Controller:  The IESG














































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Leslie Daigle for her work on
   U-NAPTR; Peter Koch for his feedback on the DNS aspects of this
   document; and ...














































Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, March 1997.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3396]  Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
              Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
              November 2002.

   [RFC4702]  Stapp, M., Volz, B., and Y. Rekhter, "The Dynamic Host
              Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Client Fully Qualified
              Domain Name (FQDN) Option", RFC 4702, October 2006.

   [RFC4704]  Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
              Option", RFC 4704, October 2006.

   [I-D.daigle-unaptr]
              Daigle, L., "Domain-based Application Service Location
              Using URIs and the Dynamic  Delegation Discovery Service
              (DDDS)", draft-daigle-unaptr-02 (work in progress),
              February 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain]
              Yan, R., "Domain Suffix Option for DHCPv6",
              draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsdomain-04 (work in progress),
              December 2006.

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC3118]  Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
              Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.



Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


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

   [RFC3958]  Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
              Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
              Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, March 2005.

   [RFC4367]  Rosenberg, J. and IAB, "What's in a Name: False
              Assumptions about DNS Names", RFC 4367, February 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]
              Rosenberg, J., "Simple Traversal Underneath Network
              Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)",
              draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-05 (work in progress),
              October 2006.

   [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
              Winterbottom, J., "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
              draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-04 (work in
              progress), October 2006.

   [UPnP-IGD-WANIPConnection1]
              UPnP Forum, "Internet Gateway Device (IGD) Standardized
              Device Control Protocol V 1.0: WANIPConnection:1 Service
              Template Version 1.01 For UPnP Version 1.0", DCP 05-001,
              Nov 2001.





















Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Martin Thomson
   Andrew
   PO Box U40
   Wollongong University Campus, NSW  2500
   AU

   Phone: +61 2 4221 2915
   Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com
   URI:   http://www.andrew.com/


   James Winterbottom
   Andrew
   PO Box U40
   Wollongong University Campus, NSW  2500
   AU

   Phone: +61 2 4221 2938
   Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
   URI:   http://www.andrew.com/





























Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                LIS Discovery                February 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).





Thomson & Winterbottom   Expires August 22, 2007               [Page 18]


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