GEOPRIV H. Schulzrinne, Ed. Internet-Draft Columbia University Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig, Ed. Expires: April 4, 2008 Nokia Siemens Networks J. Morris CDT J. Cuellar Siemens J. Polk Cisco October 2, 2007 Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-13.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 April 4, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Abstract This document defines an authorization policy language for controling access to location information. It extends the Common Policy authorization framework to provide location-specific access control. More specifically, this document defines location-specific transformation elements to reduce the granularity of the returned location information. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Generic Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Structure of Geolocation Authorization Documents . . . . . 8 3.2. Rule Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Set Retransmission-Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Set Retention-Expiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. Set Note-Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. Keep Ruleset Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5. Provide Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5.1. Civic Location Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.5.2. Geodetic Location Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Rule Example with Location-based Transformations . . . . . 16 8. XML Schema for Basic Location Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. XML Schema for Geolocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. XCAP Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.1. Application Unique ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.2. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.3. Default Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.4. MIME Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.5. Validation Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.6. Data Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.7. Naming Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10.8. Resource Interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.9. Authorization Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11.1. Geolocation Policy XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . 24 11.2. Geolocation Policy Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . 24 11.3. Geolocation Policy Location Profile Registry . . . . . . . 25 11.4. Basic Location Profile XML Schema Registration . . . . . . 25 11.5. Basic Location Profile Namespace Registration . . . . . . 26 11.6. XCAP Application Usage ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 1. Introduction Location information needs to be protected against unauthorized access to preserve the privacy of humans. In RFC 3693 [3], a protocol-independent model for access to geographic information is defined. The model includes a Location Generator (LG) that determines location information, a Location Server (LS) that authorizes access to location information, a Location Recipient (LR) that requests and receives location information, and a Rule Maker (RM) that writes authorization policies. An authorization policy is a set of rules that regulates an entity's activities with respect to privacy-sensitive information, such as location information. The data object containing location information in the context of this document is referred to as a Location Object (LO). The basic rule set defined in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) [4] can restrict how long the Location Recipient is allowed to retain the information, and it can prohibit further distribution. It also contains a reference to an enhanced rule set and a human readable privacy policy. The basic rule set, however, does not allow to control access to location information based on specific Location Recipients. This document describes an enhanced rule set that provides richer constraints on the distribution of LOs. The rule set allows the entity that uses the rules defined in this document to restrict the retention and to enforce access restrictions on location data, including prohibiting any dissemination to particular individuals, during particular times or when the Target's sphere setting contains a particular value. The RM can also stipulate that only certain parts of the Location Object are to be distributed to recipients or that the resolution of parts of the Location Object is reduced. The typical sequence of operations is as follows. A Location Server receives a query for location information from a Watcher for a particular Target, via the using protocol [3]. The using protocol provides the identity of the requestor, either at the time of the query or when subscribing to the location information. The authenticated identity of the Location Recipient, together with other information provided by the using protocol or generally available to the server, is then used for searching through the rule set. If more than one rule matches the condition element, then the combined permission is evaluated according to the description in Section 10 of [1]. The result of the rule evalation is applied to the location information, yielding a possibly modified Location Object that is delivered to the Location Recipient. This document does not describe the protocol used to convey location Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 information from the Location Server to the Location Recipient (i.e., the using protocol; see RFC 3693 [3]). This document extends the Common Policy framework defined in [1]. That document provides an abstract framework for expressing authorization rules. As specified there, each such rule consists of conditions, actions and transformations. Conditions determine under which circumstances the entity executing the rules, for example a Location Server, is permitted to apply actions and transformations. Transformations regulate in a location information context how a Location Server modifies the information elements that are returned to the requestor, for example, by reducing the granularity of returned location information. The XML schema defined in Section 9 extends the Common Policy schema by introducing new child elements to the condition and transformation elements. This document does not define child elements for the action part of a rule. When a rule is available then it has the semantic of a 'permit' action. 'Deny' actions are not supported by this document. This document furthermore does not specify child elements for the condition part of a rule. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2]. This document reuses the terminology of RFC 3693 [3], such as Location Server (LS), Location Recipient (LR), Rule Maker (RM), Target, Location Generator (LG) and Location Object (LO). This document uses the following terminology: Presentity or Target: RFC 3693 [3] uses the term Target to identify the object or person of which location information is required. The presence model described in RFC 2778 [5] uses the term presentity to describe the entity that provides presence information to a presence service. A Presentity in a presence system is a Target in a location information system. Watcher or Location Recipient: The receiver of location information is the Location Recipient (LR) in the terminology of RFC 3693 [3]. A watcher in a presence system, i.e., an entity that requests presence information about a presentity, is a Location Recipient in a location information system. Authorization policy: An authorization policy is given by a rule set. A rule set contains an unordered list of (policy) rules. Each rule has a condition, an action and a transformation component. Permission: The term permission refers to the action and transformation components of a rule. The term 'using protocol' is defined in [3] and refers to the protocol that is used to request access to and to return privacy sensitive data items. In this document we use the term Location Servers as the entities that evaluate the geolocation authorization policies. The Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 geolocation privacy architecture is, as motivated in RFC 4079 [6], aligned with the presence architecture and a Presence Server is therefore an entity that may distribute location information along with other presence-specific XML data elements. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 3. Generic Processing 3.1. Structure of Geolocation Authorization Documents A geolocation authorization document is an XML document, formatted according to the schema defined in [1]. Geolocation authorization documents inherit the MIME type of common policy documents, application/auth-policy+xml. As described in [1], this document is composed of rules which contain three parts - conditions, actions, and transformations. Each action or transformation, which is also called a permission, has the property of being a positive grant of information to the Location Recipient. As a result, there is a well- defined mechanism for combining actions and transformations obtained from several sources. This mechanism is privacy safe, since the lack of any action or transformation can only result in less information being presented to a Location Recipient. 3.2. Rule Transport There are two ways how the authorization rules described in this document may be conveyed between different parties: o RFC 4119 [4] allows enhanced authorization policies to be referenced via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in the 'ruleset- reference' element. The ruleset-reference' element is part of the basic rules that always travel with the Location Object. o Authorization policies might, for example, also be stored at a Location Server / Presence Server. The Rule Maker therefore needs to use a protocol to create, modify and delete the authorization policies defined in this document. Such a protocol is available with the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) [7]. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 4. Conditions This document does not define location-specific conditions. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 5. Actions This document does not define location-specific actions. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 6. Transformations This document defines several elements that allow Rule Makers to specify transformations that o reduce the accuracy of the returned location information, and o set the basic authorization policies carried inside the PIDF-LO. 6.1. Set Retransmission-Allowed This element asks the LS to change or set the value of the element in the PIDF-LO. The data type of the element is a boolean. If the value of the element is set to TRUE then the element in the PIDF-LO MUST be set to TRUE. If the value of the element is set to FALSE, then the element in the PIDF-LO MUST be set to FALSE. If the element is absent then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO MUST be kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time, then the value MUST be set to FALSE. 6.2. Set Retention-Expiry This transformation asks the LS to change or set the value of the element in the PIDF-LO. The data type of the element is an integer. The value provided with the element indicates seconds and these seconds are added to the current date. If the element is absent then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time, then the value MUST be set to the current date. 6.3. Set Note-Well This transformation asks the LS to change or set the value of the element in the PIDF-LO. The data type of the element is a string. The value provided with the element contains a privacy statement as a human readable text string and an 'xml:lang' Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 attribute denotes the language of the human readable text. If the element is absent, then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time, then no content is provided for the element. 6.4. Keep Ruleset Reference This transformation allows to influence whether the element in the PIDF-LO carries the extended authorization rules defined in [1]. The data type of the element is Boolean. If the value of the element is set to TRUE, then the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged when included. If the value of the element is set to FALSE, then the element in the PIDF-LO MUST NOT contain a reference to an external rule set. The reference to the ruleset is removed and no rules are carried as MIME bodies (in case of CID URIs). If the element is absent, then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged when available or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time then the element MUST NOT be included. 6.5. Provide Location The element contains child elements of a specific location profile that controls the granularity of returned location information. This document defines two location profiles, namely: o If the element has a child element then civic location information is disclosed as described in Section 6.5.1, subject to availability. o If the element has a child element then geodetic location information is disclosed as described in Section 6.5.2, subject to availability. The element MUST contain the 'profile' attribute if it contains child elements and the 'profile' attribute MUST match with the contained child elements. The element MUST contain the 'profile' attribute if it contains child elements. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 If the element has no child elements then civic, as well as, geodetic location information is disclosed without reducing its granularity, subject to availability. In this case the profile attribute MUST NOT be included. 6.5.1. Civic Location Profile This profile uses the token 'civic-transformation'. This profile allows civic location transformations to be specified by means of the element that restricts the level of civic location information the LS is permitted to disclose. The symbols of these levels are: 'country', 'region', 'city', 'building', 'full'. Each level is given by a set of civic location data items such as and , ..., , as defined in [8]. Each level includes all elements included by the lower levels. The 'country' level includes only the element; the 'region' level adds the element; the 'city' level adds the and elements; the 'building' level and the 'full' level add further civic location data as shown below. full {, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,, , , , , , , , , } | | building {, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , } | | city {, , , } | | region {, } | | country {} | | none Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 {} The default value is "none". The schema of the element is defined in Section 8. 6.5.2. Geodetic Location Profile This profile uses the token 'geodetic-transformation' and refers only to the Coordinate Reference System (CRS) WGS 84 (urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326, 2D) and WGS 84 (urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4979, 3D). This profile allows geodetic location transformations to be specified by means of the element that restricts the resolution of geodetic location information based on the value provided in the , and child elements of the element. The resolution is specified as a real number r. Assume that the variable n represents the nominal coordinate value (longitude, latitude or altitude), the rounded value is computed as n'=FLOOR(n*r + 0.5)/r Small r values indicate that the granularity of the returned location information will be reduced. The smaller the value r is the larger is the granularity reduction. The value '0' for r is used to indicate that location MUST NOT be distributed. Per default the value '0' is assumed. A large r value indicates that a large amount of the available location information will be distributed. The larger the value r is the more precise the returned location information is. The maximum is infinity, the symbol "INF", indicating that the available information is disclosed without reduction of the granularity. A value of r=10,000 is sufficiently large in order not to reduce the granularity of the returned location information. If r is set to 0.0667 (i.e., 1/r = 15) then a timezone- level resolution is provided. Next, we show an example where we assume a nominal latitude value of n=38.89868. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Value r Computed n' --------------------------- 0.01 0.0 0.1 40.0 0.5 38.0 1 39.0 5 38.8 10 38.9 50,000 38.8987 The schema of the element is defined in Section 8. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 7. Examples This section provides a few examples for authorization rules using the extensions defined in this document. 7.1. Rule Example with Location-based Transformations This example shows the transformations specified in this document. The element indicates that the available civic location information is reduced to building level granularity. If geodetic location information is requested then a granularity reduction is provided as well. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 false 86400 My privacy policy goes in here. false building 0.01 0.01 0.01 The following rule describes the short-hand notation for making the current location of the Target available to Location Recipients without granularity reduction. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 8. XML Schema for Basic Location Profiles This section defines the location profiles used as child elements of the transformation element. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 9. XML Schema for Geolocation Policy This section presents the XML schema that defines the Geolocation Policy schema described in this document. The Geolocation Policy schema extends the Common Policy schema (see [1]). Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 10. XCAP Usage The following section defines the details necessary for clients to manipulate geolocation privacy documents from a server using XCAP. If used as part of a presence system, it uses the same AUID as those rules. See [9] for a description of the XCAP usage in context with presence authorization rules. 10.1. Application Unique ID XCAP requires application usages to define a unique application usage ID (AUID) in either the IETF tree or a vendor tree. This specification defines the "geolocation-policy" AUID within the IETF tree, via the IANA registration in Section 11. 10.2. XML Schema XCAP requires application usages to define a schema for their documents. The schema for geolocation authorization documents is described in Section 9. 10.3. Default Namespace XCAP requires application usages to define the default namespace for their documents. The default namespace is urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geolocation-policy. 10.4. MIME Type XCAP requires application usages to defined the MIME type for documents they carry. Geolocation privacy authorization documents inherit the MIME type of common policy documents, application/ auth-policy+xml. 10.5. Validation Constraints This specification does not define additional constraints. 10.6. Data Semantics This document discusses the semantics of a geolocation privacy authorization. 10.7. Naming Conventions When a Location Server receives a request to access location information of some user foo, it will look for all documents within http://[xcaproot]/geolocation-policy/users/foo, and use all documents Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 found beneath that point to guide authorization policy. 10.8. Resource Interdependencies This application usage does not define additional resource interdependencies. 10.9. Authorization Policies This application usage does not modify the default XCAP authorization policy, which is that only a user can read, write or modify his/her own documents. A server can allow privileged users to modify documents that they do not own, but the establishment and indication of such policies is outside the scope of this document. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 11. IANA Considerations There are several IANA considerations associated with this specification. 11.1. Geolocation Policy XML Schema Registration URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geolocation-policy Registrant Contact: IETF Geopriv Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com). XML: The XML schema to be registered is contained in Section 9. Its first line is and its last line is 11.2. Geolocation Policy Namespace Registration URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geolocation-policy Registrant Contact: IETF Geopriv Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com). XML: Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 BEGIN Geolocation Policy Namespace

Namespace for Geolocation Authorization Policies

urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geolocation-policy

See RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.].

END 11.3. Geolocation Policy Location Profile Registry This document seeks to create a registry of location profile names for the Geolocation Policy framework. Profile names are XML tokens. This registry will operate in accordance with RFC 2434 [10], Standards Action. This document defines the following profile names: geodetic-transformation: Defined in Section 6.5.2. civic-transformation: Defined in Section 6.5.1. 11.4. Basic Location Profile XML Schema Registration URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:basic-location-profiles Registrant Contact: IETF Geopriv Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com). XML: The XML schema to be registered is contained in Section 8. Its first line is and its last line is Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 11.5. Basic Location Profile Namespace Registration URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:basic-location-profiles Registrant Contact: IETF Geopriv Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com). XML: BEGIN Basic Location Profile Namespace

Namespace for Basic Location Profile

urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:basic-location-profiles

See RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.].

END 11.6. XCAP Application Usage ID This section registers an XCAP Application Usage ID (AUID) according to the IANA procedures defined in [7]. Name of the AUID: geolocation-policy Description: Geolocation privacy rules are documents that describe the permissions that a Target has granted to Location Recipients that access information about his/her geographic location. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 12. Security Considerations This document aims to allow Rule Makers to prevent the unintended disclosure of location information information to third parties. This is accomplished through the usage of transformations that are part of rules, see Section 6. Security requirements are described in [3] and a discussion of generic security threats is available with [11]. Aspects of combining permissions in cases of multiple occurrence are treated in [1]). When the Target is moving then the location transformations reveal information when switching from one privacy region to another one. For example, when a transformation indicates that civic location is provided at a 'building' level of granularity. Hence, room numbers, floors etc. would be hidden. However, when the Target moves from one building to the next one then the movement would still be recognizable as the disclosed location information would be reflected by the new civic location information indicating the new building. With additional knowledge about building entrances and streets it would be possible to learn a certain amont of information. It is therefore important to ensure that selected privacy regions are not chosen too small when mobility is a concern and that a random number to is added to the position of the Target, with an absolute value of half the privacy region. The latter aspect is only applicable for geodetic information or when geodetic information is translated to civic information by the Location Server. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 13. References 13.1. Normative References [1] Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J., Polk, J., and J. Rosenberg, "Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences", RFC 4745, February 2007. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. 13.2. Informative References [3] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. [4] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. [5] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. [6] Peterson, J., "A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects", RFC 4079, July 2005. [7] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825, May 2007. [8] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location Format for PIDF-LO", draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05 (work in progress), February 2007. [9] Rosenberg, J., "Presence Authorization Rules", draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-10 (work in progress), July 2007. [10] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [11] Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J., and J. Peterson, "Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", RFC 3694, February 2004. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Appendix A. Acknowledgments This document is informed by the discussions within the IETF GEOPRIV working group, including discussions at the GEOPRIV interim meeting in Washington, D.C., in 2003. We particularly want to thank Allison Mankin , Randall Gellens , Andrew Newton , Ted Hardie , Jon Peterson for their help in improving the quality of this document. We would like to thank Christian Guenther for his help with an earlier version of this document. Furthermore, we would like to thank Johnny Vrancken for his document reviews in September 2006, December 2006 and January 2007. James Winterbottom provided a detailed review in November 2006. We would like to thank Dan Romascanu, Yoshiko Chong and Jari Urpalainen for their last call comments. Finally, we would like to thank the following individuals for their feedback as part of the IESG, GenArt, and SecDir review: Jari Arkko, Eric Gray, Russ Housley, Carl Reed, Martin Thomson, Lisa Dusseault, Chris Newman, Jon Peterson, Sam Hartman, Cullen Jennings, Tim Polk, and Brian Rosen Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 Authors' Addresses Henning Schulzrinne (editor) Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 USA Phone: +1 212 939 7042 Email: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs Hannes Tschofenig (editor) Nokia Siemens Networks Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich, Bavaria 81739 Germany Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com URI: http://www.tschofenig.com John B. Morris, Jr. Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 USA Email: jmorris@cdt.org URI: http://www.cdt.org Jorge R. Cuellar Siemens Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich, Bavaria 81739 Germany Email: Jorge.Cuellar@siemens.com Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 2007 James Polk Cisco 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike Richardson, Texas 75082 USA Email: jmpolk@cisco.com Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy October 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). Schulzrinne, et al. Expires April 4, 2008 [Page 32]