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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Geopriv                                                  J. Winterbottom
Internet-Draft                                        Andrew Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track                           H. Tschofenig
Expires: April 24, 2010                           Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                              M. Thomson
                                                      Andrew Corporation
                                                        October 21, 2009

     Location URI Contexts in HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)

Status of This Memo

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

   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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009


   This document describes a protocol extension for the HTTP-Enabled
   Location Delivery (HELD) protocol.  It allows a Target to manage
   their location information on a Location Information Server (LIS)
   through the application of constraints invoked by accessing a
   location URI.  Constraints are described that allow control over how
   long the URI is valid for and the access policy used when a location
   URI is accessed.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  HELD Contexts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Simplified Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Authorization Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Context Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Snapshot Contexts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Create Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Update Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Context Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4.  Context Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.5.  Location URI and Context Identifier Generation Rules . . . 12
   5.  XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.1.  Multiple Contexts from the 'Same' Target . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.1.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
           urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:context  . . . . . . . 17
     7.2.  XML Schema Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.3.  HELD Error Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix A.  Compliance to Location by Reference Requirements  . . 20

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

1.  Introduction

   The HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) protocol specification
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] provides a set of features
   that can be used by a Target to retrieve location information from a
   Location Information Server (LIS).  The LIS is able to optionally
   provide a location URI [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements], which
   provides a reference to location information.

   A location URI that is provided by a LIS using the basic HELD
   specification, is essentially immutable once retrieved.  There is no
   means provided of controlling how the URI is used.  A default policy
   is applied to the URI, which is fixed until the location URI expires;
   a Location Recipient in possession of the location URI can retrieve
   the Target's location until the expiry time lapses.

   This basic mechanism may be reasonable in a limited set of
   applications, but is unacceptable in a broader range of applications.
   In particular, the ability to change policy dynamically is more able
   to protect the privacy of the Target.
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] enumerates several requirements
   relating to location URIs that cannot be achieved using the basic
   HELD specification.  This specification addresses these requirements
   in HELD.

   Two new forms of HELD request are defined by this document.  These
   requests relate to the creation and maintenance of a _HELD context_,
   a concept that is explained in more detail in Section 3.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This document uses the terms defined in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch]
   (Target, Location Recipient, Location Server),
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] (location URI), and
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] (Location Information Server, or LIS).

3.  HELD Contexts

   A location URI is a reference to the current location of a Target.
   The host identified in the URI, the Location Server (LS), serves
   requests to a location URI using two classes of data:

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   authorization policy:  Authorization policies are set by Rule Makers
      and determine whether the requester is permitted to receive
      location information and whether there are any constraints on that

   location determination inputs:  Information on the identity of the
      Target and how location information for that Target can be
      acquired might be saved by the LS.

   This information is associated with every location URI served by an
   LS.  The collection of data used by the LS establishes a "context"
   for the location dereference request made by a Location Recipient.

   The LS role could be assumed by the LIS that provides the location
   URI to the Device, or it could be a separate entity.

   In HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery], the establishment
   of the necessary contextual information is implicit.  Creation of a
   location URI implies that the identified LS has sufficient
   information to service requests to that URI.

   This document provides a more explicit mechanism for the creation and
   management of the contextual information used in serving a location
   URI.  A "HELD context" - simply "context" in this document - can be
   created, updated and destroyed at the request of the Device.  In
   addition, a Device is able to establish authorization policies in the
   form of common policy documents [RFC4745] that provide greater
   control over how a location URI is served by the LS.

3.1.  Simplified Model

   The model assumed in this specification, shown in Figure 1, is a
   simplified variant of that in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch] that includes
   the LIS entity.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

     |            |
     | Rule Maker |           +-------------+           +-----------+
     |            |           |             |           |           |
     + - - -- - - +           |  Location   |           | Location  |
     |            |           |   Server    |-----------| Recipient |
     |   Target   |           |             |   (LDP)   |           |
     |            |           + - - - - - - +           +-----------+
     + - - -- - - +           |             |                |
     |            |           |  Location   |                |
     |   Device   |-----------| Information |                |
     |            |   (LCP)   |   Server    |                |
     +------------+           |             |                |
           |                  +-------------+                |
           |                                                 |

                       Figure 1: HELD Contexts Model

   This model assumes some form of relationship between a Rule Maker,
   Target and Device; for instance, the Rule Maker and Target might be
   the same person.  The Device is operated under the control of a Rule
   Maker and is able to provide authorization policies or disseminate
   location URIs in accordance with the Rule Maker's wishes.

   This document also assumes a relationship is assumed between LIS and
   LS.  LIS and LS together generate location URIs and maintain context
   information.  These roles could be filled by the same entity.

   The location configuration protocol (LCP) interface is extended by
   this document to include a rules interface for the Rule Maker
   associated with the Target and Device.  This model does not preclude
   the existence of other Rule Makers that use other rules interfaces.

3.2.  Authorization Policies

   A Device is able to specify an authorization policy when creating or
   updating a context.  The authorization policy states which Location
   Recipients are able to access location information through the
   context and the associated URIs, plus any other constraints on this

   A Device is able to provide a policy document in the form of a common
   policy document [RFC4745] or an "https:" reference to one.  Existence
   of an explicit authorization policy implies that the "authorization
   by access control lists" model ([I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements])
   is to be applied.  The LS uses the authorization policy document to
   control how location information is provided to Location Recipients.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   A Device is able to indicate that the LS is permitted to apply the
   "authorization by possession" model to the context (see
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] and [I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch]).
   Any Location Recipient that proves possession of the location URI by
   making a location dereference request to the URI is granted
   permission to receive the location information.  Location URIs for
   the associated context MUST contain enough random entropy proof of
   possession of the URI more likely to be as a result of receiving the
   location URI from the Device than guessing.

3.3.  Context Lifetime

   A HELD context has a finite lifetime.  This limits the time that a
   context might refer to a Device that has since left the network.  Of
   course, a LIS MAY remove a context sooner, particularly if it has a
   means of detecting when the Device becomes absent.

   The lifetime of the context is negotiated between Device and LIS.
   The Device requests a certain lifetime and the LIS provides a
   location URI that is valid for any period less than the requested
   time.  Later requests by the Device can be used to delay the
   expiration of a context by requesting an extended lifetime.  With
   regular updates a context could persist indefinitely.

      Note that a LIS SHOULD NOT allow URIs that follow the
      authorization by possession model to exist indefinitely, since no
      means is provided for updating policy to revoke access to location

   A Device can request that the LIS remove context information, thereby
   invalidating the associated location URIs, by the same mechanism used
   to extend the lifetime.

3.4.  Snapshot Contexts

   At the time that a context is created, the Device is able to request
   that the context refer to a static document that is created at the
   time of request.  The LIS creates a Location Object (LO) based on the
   associated HELD request parameters and stores the LO.  All requests
   to the location URI created in response to this request are served
   based on the stored LO.

   This basic constraint on the context applies for the life of the
   context.  Only the application of authorization policy rules can
   change what is provided to different Location Recipients.  If
   authorization by possession is used, the associated location URI is
   different to a Location Object only in that it needs to be

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

4.  Protocol Details

   This specification introduces three new HELD messages, create context
   (<createContext>), update context (<updateContext>), and context
   response (<contextResponse>).

   All context-related messages are HELD messages, sent using the
   "application/held+xml" MIME type defined in

   A LIS that does not understand this specification returns a HELD
   "unsupportedMessage" error code in a HELD "error" message.  A LIS
   that does understand this specification returns errors associated
   with context operations in a HELD error message.  New error codes
   relating to failed context operations are defined in Section 4.4.

   The specification assumes that the LIS was discovered as part of the
   LIS discovery [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery] and that the LIS is
   able to provide location information.

4.1.  Create Context

   The Device creates a context on the LIS using a create context
   message.  A sample create context request is shown in Figure 2.


                     Figure 2: Create Context Example

   The following parameters of the create context request are defined:

   lifetime:  The maximum lifetime of the context in seconds.  All
      create contexts requests include this parameter.  The LIS MAY
      create the context with a shorter lifetime than was requested, but
      the lifetime MUST NOT be longer than was requested.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   snapshot:  Whether the value provided to location Recipients is fixed
      from the time that the context is created (see Section 3.4).  This
      a boolean parameter with a default value of "false", meaning that
      the location is generate each time that the location URI is
      dereferenced or recently cached information is used.

   policy:  An authorization policy, either included directly as an
      instance of a common policy [RFC4745] document, or by reference as
      a URI.  Only one of the following forms of policy are permitted:

      cp:ruleset:  The Device is able to provide an authorization policy
         explicitly in the request by including a common policy document
         in the create context request.  A "ruleset" element is included
         as a child of the "policy" element.

      ruleset-reference:  Alternatively, a reference to a policy
         document can be included using the "ruleset-reference" element.
         A Rule Maker might maintain an authorization policy on a server
         (perhaps with XCAP [RFC4825]).  This reference MUST be an
         "https:" URI.  The LS MUST retrieve the policy before granting
         any Location Recipient access to location information; the
         policy MAY either be retrieved immediately or as a Location
         Recipient makes a request.  The LS can be expected to retrieve
         the policy document once only, but it MAY be retrieved multiple

         Note that the LIS could be unable to detect errors in policy
         before sending a response to a request that includes this
         element.  A successful context response might be sent, even if
         the policy document cannot be retrieved by the LIS or the
         referenced policy document is not understood by the LIS.

      possession:  This element indicates that authorization by
         possession [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] is to be used
         for the context.

      otherPolicy:  Alternative policy information might be provided.
         This element is provided to allow for expansion.  A LIS MAY
         reject requests that contain policy that it does not understand
         with the "badPolicy" error code.

4.2.  Update Context

   A Device is able to update policy or change the lifetime of a context
   using an update context request.  Other context parameters defined in
   other specification might also be updated using this method.

   Once created, a context that contains a "snapshot" of the Target's

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   location cannot be made dynamic; the same applies in converse, a
   dynamic context cannot be made into a static snapshot.

   A Device might maintain more than one HELD context; therefore, the
   request needs to identify the context to be updated.  The
   "context-id" is included in this message.

       <cp:ruleset xmlns:cp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy">
         <!-- authorization policy rules -->

                     Figure 3: Update Context Example

   When a Device includes a "lifetime" element in an update context
   message, the lifetime of the context is modified.  If the requested
   lifetime is longer than the time remaining before the context
   expires, the context lifetime is lengthened.  If the requested
   lifetime is shorter than the remaining time, the context lifetime is

   A context that is updated continuously can be maintained indefinitely
   using this mechanism.  The LIS MAY provide a shorter lifetime than
   the requested time.  In particular, the total lifetime of contexts
   that use authorization by possession MUST be limited.

   This mechanism also allows for the cancellation of contexts.  The
   Device indicates a context lifetime of 0 in the update context
   request.  The LIS MAY also terminate a context immediately if the
   lifetime value is less than 10 seconds.


               Figure 4: Update Context Termination Example

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   When an update context request contains policy information, that
   policy information replaces any existing policy.  Omitting the
   "policy" element means that the previous policy remains unchanged.
   If a "ruleset-reference" element is provided, the LS MUST retrieve
   the referenced policy document before serving subsequent requests
   from Location Recipients.  Conditional HTTP requests, such as those
   containing the "If-Modified-Since" header MAY be used to avoid
   retrieval of the entire policy.

   The rules regarding the construction of location URIs in
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] differ based on the
   authorization model used.  The LIS MUST NOT permit a change in policy
   if the location URIs associated with the context do not meet the
   requirements for the updated authorization model.  See Section 4.5
   for more details.

4.3.  Context Response Message

   The context response message is sent in response to a create context
   request or an update context request.  This message includes
   information about the context that has been created, updated or

   The "code" attribute of the context response indicates what action
   was accomplished by the request:

   created:  The context was successfully created.

   updated:  The context was successfully updated.

   destroyed:  The context was destroyed.

   The context response contains a "context" element that includes
   information about the context that was the subject of the request.

   id:  A value that uniquely identifies the context within the context
      of the LIS.  This identifier is used to identify a context for
      update context requests.  Knowledge of this value is used by the
      LIS to authenticate and authorize any attempts to update the
      context.  The Target MUST keep this value secret.

   expires:  The time at which the context will expire.  After this
      time, all location URIs that reference this context no longer

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   snapshot:  Whether the context contains a snapshot of the Target's
      location.  This value has a default value of "false".

   The LIS also provides a set of URIs that can used to access the
   Target's location using the created context.  The set of URIs does
   not change over the lifetime of the context.

   A context response message sent in reply to the create context
   message in Figure 2 might look like Figure 5.

   <contextResponse code="created"
     <context id="uhvuhdbnuiehudbnvcujevuijeijcvij4"
              snapshot="false" expires="2007-11-01T13:30:00">

                    Figure 5: Context Response Example

4.4.  Context Errors

   A set of HELD error codes are minted for use in context requests and

   badPolicy:  The LIS (or LS) was unable to use the included policy due
      to it being invalid, badly formed, or inaccessible (when
      "ruleset-reference" is used).  A LIS MAY return an error with this
      code if the policy contains no rules that could be used by the LS.
      For instance, all the rules might have validity intervals that do
      not correspond with the lifetime of the URI, or rules might
      require authentication modes that are not supported by the LS.

   unknownContext:  The LIS was unable to find the context, possibly
      because the context identifier provided was invalid or because the
      context has already expired.

   contextFailure:  The LIS was unable to create or update the context.

   Any other HELD error message can be provided in response to a create
   or update context request.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   The following HELD error is sent in response to a create context
   request where the LIS indicates that snapshot is not supported.

   <error xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
          code="contextFailure" message="Snapshot is not supported"/>

                      Figure 6: Example Error Message

4.5.  Location URI and Context Identifier Generation Rules

   Location URIs generated by a LIS (or LS) MUST meet the construction
   requirements in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements].  If the LIS
   permits changing of the authorization model that applies to a
   context, then the more stringent requirements MUST be complied with.
   In particular, the requirements for a location URI that operates on
   the authorization by possession model are more stringent than one
   that operates on an authorization policy.

   Location URIs that operate on authorization by possession rely on
   being difficult to guess to prevent unintential disclosure of
   location information.  A LIS MUST include a sequence of characters
   with random entropy sufficient to prevent guessing.  In general, more
   entropy is needed for location URIs with longer lifetimes.

   The context identifier provided by the LIS to the Target in the
   context response message MUST be unique.  Context identifiers are
   secrets used to indicate authorization for context update requests.
   Therefore, context identifiers MUST contain sufficient random entropy
   that they are not easily guessable.

   A location URI MUST NOT include information that could be used in any
   way to derive the value of a context identifier.  Similarly, context
   identifiers MUST NOT be based on Target identity.

   New contexts MUST have unique location URIs that have not previously
   been used for other contexts, even if the previous context was for
   the same Target.  This might be achieved by including a monotonically
   increasing sequence number in addition to the random sequence.

5.  XML Schema

  <?xml version="1.0"?>

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

      elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

        HELD Context Management
      <xs:documentation source="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt">
  <!-- [[NOTE TO RFC-EDITOR: Please replace above URL with URL of
                         published RFC and remove this note.]] -->
        This document defines messages for HELD context management.

    <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy"/>

    <xs:complexType name="policyType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
              <xs:element name="ruleset-reference" type="xs:anyURI"/>
              <xs:element ref="cp:ruleset"/>
              <xs:element name="possession" type="ctxt:empty"/>
              <xs:element name="otherPolicy" type="xs:anyType"/>

    <xs:complexType name="createContextType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
            <xs:element name="lifeTime" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"/>
            <xs:element name="snapshot" type="xs:boolean"/>
            <xs:element name="policy" type="ctxt:policyType"
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>

    <xs:complexType name="updateContextType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

            <xs:element name="context-id" type="xs:NCName"/>
            <xs:element name="lifeTime" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"
            <xs:element name="policy" type="ctxt:policyType"
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>

    <xs:simpleType name="codeType">
      <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
        <xs:enumeration value="created"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="updated"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="destroyed"/>

    <xs:complexType name="uriSetType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
            <xs:element name="locationURI" type="xs:anyURI"
                        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>

    <xs:complexType name="contextType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
            <xs:element name="locationUriSet" type="ctxt:uriSetType"/>
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <xs:attribute name="id" type="xs:ID" use="required"/>
          <xs:attribute name="expires" type="xs:dateTime"
          <xs:attribute name="snapshot" type="xs:boolean"
          <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009


    <xs:complexType name="contextResponseType">
        <xs:restriction base="xs:anyType">
            <xs:element name="context" type="ctxt:contextType"/>
            <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax"
                    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
          <xs:attribute name="code" type="ctxt:codeType"
          <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax"/>

    <xs:element name="createContext" type="ctxt:createContextType"/>
    <xs:element name="updateContext" type="ctxt:updateContextType"/>
    <xs:element name="contextResponse" type="ctxt:contextResponseType"/>


6.  Security Considerations

   The data that is maintained in a HELD context is privacy sensitive
   information.  This information is provided by a Device for the
   purposes of providing authorized Location Recipients with location
   information.  The LIS MUST NOT use the information it stores in a
   HELD context for anything other than serving requests to the
   associated location URIs.

   The LS MUST enforce the authorization policy established by the
   Device.  The authorization policy determines which Location
   Recipients are permitted to receive location information, and how
   that location information is provided.  An authorization policy can
   be updated by the Device at any time using the update context
   request; after the LIS responds to this request, the authorization
   policy applies to all subsequent requests from Location Recipients.

   An authorization policy can be referenced using "ruleset-reference"
   in a create context or update context request.  The LS MUST retrieve
   any referenced authorization policy using HTTP over TLS [RFC2818]
   before providing location information to any Location Recipient.

   Context identifiers are confidential information shared only between
   LIS and Device.  Location URIs are also confidential if authorization

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   by possession is chosen by the device, in which case the location URI
   is shared only between LIS, Device and authorized Location
   Recipients.  The LIS MUST ensure that context identifiers and
   location URIs are constructed following the rules described in
   Section 4.5 of this document.

   HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] mandates the use of
   TLS for exchanges between a Device and the LIS.  TLS provides
   confidentiality, protection from modification, LIS (and possibly
   Device) authentication.  Messages related to HELD contexts contain
   information that requires the same protections.

6.1.  Multiple Contexts from the 'Same' Target

   It is conceivable that a LIS will be required to provide location to
   Devices residing behind a NAT.  A home gateway is a good example of a
   situation where the relatively small geographic area served by the
   gateway is adequately served by a LIS external to that network (see
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]).  Devices within the home network
   appear to have the same identity information to a LIS - requests all
   originate from the same IP address.  In this case, each Device might
   create its own context on the LIS.  The LIS treats each context
   individually even though the LIS might be unable to distinguish
   between the actual Devices making the requests.

   It is also possible that a single Device could request multiple
   contexts.  Devices might have multiple users, or multiple
   applications running that each have have different privileges,
   different privacy requirements or are controlled by different Rule
   Makers.  Therefore, different contexts might be used for different
   uses: each might a different policy that reflects the needs of the
   user or application.  Information provided by a Device related to a
   context MUST NOT be used by the LIS outside of that context.

   The state information maintained by the LIS or LS in providing a
   context presents a denial of service attack vector.  Limiting the
   number of contexts that the LIS allows to be created can protect
   against such attacks.  To ensure that LIS resources are not
   exhausted, the LIS MUST limit the number of contexts that it permits
   from each identifier.

      Any limits need to consider the usage pattern expected.  For
      instance, if home gateways are commonly deployed in the access
      network, then the LIS might allow for more than one context for
      each discrete identifier.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers the schema and associated namespace with

7.1.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration for

   This section registers a new XML namespace,
   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:context", as per the guidelines
   in [RFC3688].

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:context

      Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
      (geopriv@ietf.org), James Winterbottom


           <?xml version="1.0"?>
           <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
           <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
               <title>HELD Context Management Messages</title>
               <h1>Namespace for HELD Context Management Messages</h1>
   [[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
       with the RFC number for this specification.]]
               <p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>

7.2.  XML Schema Registration

   This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:context

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   Registrant Contact:  IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org),
      James Winterbottom (james.winterbottom@andrew.com).

   Schema:  The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of
      Section 5 of this document.

7.3.  HELD Error Code Registration

   Reference: Section 4.4 of RFCXXXX (i.e., this document) specifies the
   following HELD error codes:




   These error codes and their descriptions are added to the HELD error
   code respository created in

8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Adam Muhlbauer and Neil Justusson for their comments on the
   pre-version of this draft.

   Thanks also to Tim Zelinski and Michael Diponio, who pointed out a
   problems while implementing an early revision of this specification.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC3688]                                  Mealling, M., "The IETF
                                              XML Registry", BCP 81,
                                              RFC 3688, January 2004.

   [RFC4745]                                  Schulzrinne, H.,
                                              Tschofenig, H., Morris,

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

                                              J., Cuellar, J., Polk, J.,
                                              and J. Rosenberg, "Common
                                              Policy: A Document Format
                                              for Expressing Privacy
                                              Preferences", RFC 4745,
                                              February 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]  Barnes, M., Winterbottom,
                                              J., Thomson, M., and B.
                                              Stark, "HTTP Enabled
                                              Location Delivery (HELD)",
                                              location-delivery-16 (work
                                              in progress), August 2009.

9.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC4825]                                  Rosenberg, J., "The
                                              Extensible Markup Language
                                              (XML) Configuration Access
                                              Protocol (XCAP)",
                                              RFC 4825, May 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch]                    Barnes, R., Lepinski, M.,
                                              Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
                                              Tschofenig, H., and H.
                                              Schulzrinne, "An
                                              Architecture for Location
                                              and Location Privacy in
                                              Internet Applications",
                                              (work in progress),
                                              July 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]               Tschofenig, H. and H.
                                              Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV
                                              Layer 7 Location
                                              Configuration Protocol;
                                              Problem Statement and
                                              Requirements", draft-ietf-
                                              geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-10 (work
                                              in progress), July 2009.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements]       Marshall, R.,
                                              "Requirements for a
                                              Mechanism", draft-ietf-
                                              08 (work in progress),
                                              September 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery]           Thomson, M. and J.
                                              Winterbottom, "Discovering
                                              the Local Location
                                              Information Server (LIS)",
                                              discovery-11 (work in
                                              progress), May 2009.

Appendix A.  Compliance to Location by Reference Requirements

   This section describes how HELD and this specification comply to the
   location configuration protocol requirements stipulated in

   C1.  "Location URI support: The configuration protocol MUST support a
        location reference in URI form."

        Compliant: HELD only provides location references in URI form.

   C2.  "Location URI expiration: When a location URI has a limited
        validity interval, its lifetime MUST be indicated."

        Compliant: All location URIs provided expire; the context
        response message indicates when the URI expires.

   C3.  "Location URI cancellation: The location configuration protocol
        MUST support the ability to request a cancellation of a specific
        location URI."

        Compliant: Updating a context with a lifetime set to zero
        cancels a context.

   C4.  "Location Information Masking: The location URI MUST, through
        randomization and uniqueness, ensure that the location URI does
        not contain location information specific components."

        Compliant: The URIs produced for a HELD context are required to
        comply with this condition, see Section 4.5.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

   C5.  "Target Identity Protection: The location URI MUST NOT contain
        information that identifies the Target (e.g., user or device)."

        Compliant: The URIs produced for a HELD context are required to
        comply with this condition, see Section 4.5.

   C6.  "Reuse indicator: There SHOULD be a way to allow a Target to
        control whether a location URI can be resolved once only, or
        multiple times."

        Not compliant: No means is provided to control how often a URI
        can be resolved.  Extensions to this mechanism or additions to
        authorization policy definitions might provide this function.

   C7.  "Selective disclosure: The location configuration protocol MUST
        provide a mechanism to control what information is being
        disclosed about the Target."

        Compliant: Policy [RFC4745] is used to control what information
        is disclosed about the target.  No information about the Target
        is included in a location URI.

   C8.  "Location URI Not guessable: As a default, the location
        configuration protocol MUST return location URIs that are random
        and unique throughout the indicated lifetime.  A location URI
        with 128-bits of randomness is RECOMMENDED."

        Compliant: Section 4.5 describes how this requirement is met by

   C9.  "Location URI Options: In the case of user-provided
        authorization policies, where anonymous or non-guessable
        location URIs are not warranted, the location configuration
        protocol MAY support a variety of optional location URI
        conventions, as requested by a Target to a location
        configuration server, (e.g., embedded location information
        within the location URI)."

        Partially compliant: The authorization model is explicitly
        selected by the Device in the request.  This determines the
        constraints on how the location URI is created.  No means is
        provided for a Target or other entity to otherwise influence
        what information is included in a location URI.  This may be
        provided by extension documents.

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                HELD Contexts                 October 2009

Authors' Addresses

   James Winterbottom
   Andrew Corporation
   PO Box U40
   University of Wollongong, NSW  2500

   Phone: +61 242 212938
   EMail: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
   URI:   http://www.andrew.com/products/geometrix

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600

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

   Martin Thomson
   Andrew Corporation
   PO Box U40
   University of Wollongong, NSW  2500

   Phone: +61 242 212915
   EMail: martin.thomson@andrew.com
   URI:   http://www.andrew.com/products/geometrix

Winterbottom, et al.     Expires April 24, 2010                [Page 22]

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