Internet Engineering Task Force James M. Polk Internet Draft John Schnizlein Expiration: April 25th, 2002 Marc Linsner File: draft-polk-geopriv-loc-object-semantics-00.txt Cisco Systems Semantics for DHC Location Object within GEOPRIV October 25th, 2002 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-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. Abstract This document describes the semantic intent of the proposed Location Object (LO) within DHC ID [1] for use by the GEOPRIV Protocol. Reasons are provided for the choice of representation of location resolution, and examples illustrate the use of this choice. Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 1 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1 Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 DHC Location Object Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Elements of the Location Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 Purpose of Resolution Value per La/Lo/Alt Element . . . . . . . . 6 4.0 Calculations of Imprecision possible with the DHC LO . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Location Object of "White House" (Example 1) . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2 Location Object of "Sears Tower" (Example 2) . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.0 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.0 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.0 Author Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.0 Introduction This document describes the semantic intent of the proposed Location Object (LO) within DHC ID [1] for use by the GEOPRIV Protocol. [1] proposes no expression (which is GEOPRIV's charter), but merely defines a LO format with its elements and a mechanism to download that LO to the IP Device for other uses, with GEOPRIV being the most obvious. This LO format could be considered a subset of a larger GEOPRIV LO. Achieving a core set of LO elements is desired across multiple Protocols which can convey location information. An important feature is that [1] places the LO completely under control of the end device rather than storing the object in an outside service for retrieval by the end device during times of emergency when an outbound transaction can fail to provide necessary results. Another important feature of the LO is its inclusion of a resolution parameter for each of the dimensions of location. The GEOPRIV working group has a stated requirement [2] to enable decreasing the precision of a location element. Because this resolution parameter need not apply to all dimensions equally, a resolution value is included for each of the 3 location elements. GEOPRIV actually calls their requirement: Accuracy. We use the term and meaning "Resolution" as being more precise for the intent here. When comparing the resolution method described here with other methods to express geo-location accuracy, the result of this resolution method describes a region (normally trapezoidal) rather than the possible (error) distance from the indicated location. There is good reason not to describe geo-location accuracy as a potential error in distance from the latitude, longitude, and altitude values. Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 2 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 Example: I am located within 123 meters of 38.89868N and 77.03723W at an altitude of 0. The above example describes a circular area with a center point. If this method were used for a LO and the end device wanted to 'hide' from the center point, it would need to recalculate a location from the stated center point that remains in the stated circle. This recalculation could be problematic for the end device depending on that deviceÆs geo-location computing framework. By using the resolution method described from [1], the end device could simply express a lesser resolution value to provide a less precise location. Or, the end device may or may not need to be involved with the resolution policy at all, as this could be dictated by another entity, perhaps that device's domain, simply by providing the end device with a location with the resolution of the desired value. This resolution method provides a natural ability for the device to hide from the center point of the bounding area as this resolution method is determined via the inherent affects of binary mathematics, using the power of 2. The resulting LO using this resolution method is a small fixed length object that can be easily stored in memory and be easily appended within other protocols with little regards to packet size as the LO is only 15 bytes long. Finally, this document provides some arithmetic examples of just how the imprecision can be introduced in any or all of the La/Lo/Alt values without the IP device needing to be preprogrammed with bogus LOs, and just how imprecise the La/Lo/Alt values can be. This document does not cover any policy regarding the potential use of this other than a few as potential suggestions to convey the meaning intended by the document. 1.1 Conventions used in this document 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 [3]. 1.2 Motivation The motivation of this document is discussion within the GEOPRIV WG of a minimal Location Object, which can be delivered along with the hostÆs IP Address (as well as the other information provided in a DHCP Reply [4 and 5]). [1] has the LO format and the definitions present, but not how each of those elements map into the existing requirements of the GEOPRIV WG. Neither this document nor the [1] document address the GEOPRIV protocol for controlled sharing of the hostÆs location directly in any way. Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 3 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 2.0 DHC Location Object Elements DHCP is a binary Protocol; GEOPRIV is text-based. Most coordinate systems translate fairly easily between binary-based and text-based location output (i.e. even emergency services within the US). The authors believe translation/conversion is a non-issue with DHCP's binary format. This binary format provides a fortunate benefit in a mechanism for making a true/correct location coordinate imprecise. It further provides the capability to have this binary representation be deterministically imprecise. The proposed LO format in [1] is: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code TBD | 15 | LaRes | Latitude + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Latitude (cont'd) | LoRes | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Longitude | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MU | AltRes | Altitude | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Alt (cont'd) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2.1 Elements of the Location Object Code TBD: The code for this DHCP option is TBD by IANA. 15: The length of this option is 15 bytes. LaRes: Latitude resolution. 6 bits indicating the valid number of valid bits in the fixed-point value of Latitude. This value is a length value of the (left to right) number of Latitude bits that should be considered valid. Any bits entered to the right of this limit should not be considered valid and might be purposely false, or zeroed by the sending device (meaning the GEOPRIV target towards the requestor). The examples below in section 4.0, are to illustrate that a smaller value in the resolution field increases the area within which the device is located (without deception). Values of resolution above decimal 34 are currently Undefined and reserved because that is the largest number of bits in the Latitude variable. Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 4 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 Latitude: a 34 bit fixed point value consisting of 9 bits of integer and 25 bits of fraction. Latitude SHOULD be normalized to within +/- 90 degrees. A value of 2 in the LaRes field indicates a precision of no greater than 1/6th that of the globe (detailed in the first example in section 4.0). A value of 34 in the LaRes field indicates a precision within 3.11 mm in Latitude. LoRes: Longitude resolution. 6 bits indicating the number of valid bits in the fixed-point value of Longitude. This value is a length value of the (left to right) number of Longitude bits that should be considered valid. Any bits entered to the right of this limit should not be considered valid and might be purposely false, or zeroed by the sending device (meaning the GEOPRIV target towards the requestor). Values above decimal 34 are currently undefined and reserved. Longitude: a 34 bit fixed point value consisting of 9 bits of integer and 25 bits of fraction. Longitude SHOULD be normalized to within +/- 180 degrees. Entering a value of 2 in the LoRes field will result in the precision of no greater than 1/6th that of the globe (see first example in section 4.0 for more here). A value of 34 in the LoRes field indicates a precision within 2.42 mm in longitude (at the equator). Because lines of longitude converge at the poles, the distance is smaller (resolution greater) for locations away from the equator. AltRes: Altitude resolution. 6 bits indicating the number of valid bits in the altitude. Values above 30 decimal are undefined and reserved. MU: Measurement unit for altitude. Codes defined here are: 1: Meters - in 2s-complement fixed-point 22-bit integer part with 8-bit fraction If MU = 1, then a completely imprecise Altitude would be of AltRes value 0. If the Altitude is known exactly, then the AltRes can be value 30 (or all ones). 2: Floors - in 2s-complement fixed-point 22-bit integer part with 8-bit fraction MU = 2 for Floors was chosen because of the impreciseness of the number of meters any one floor is above/below the ground floor, or above mean low tide (the Altitude datum within WGS84). What is fairly understood is which Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 5 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 floor a device or person is on. If MU=2, AltRes = 30, and Altitude = 0, that represents the ground regardless if there is a building present or not (as well as the ground floor of a building). This is important because the precise altitude might not be known, but it is likely known what is the ground level. The non- obvious case is in a hilly or mountainous area, these values still represent being on the ground level at the La/Lo coordinates provided. 3.0 Purpose of Resolution Value per La/Lo/Alt Element GEOPRIV specified [2] the requirement that any location expressed from or proxied on behalf of a device through the GEOPRIV Protocol can have the accuracy or precision of that device's location limited. The owner of the device, or the domain of the device determines the policy for divulging how precise the location is for any/all given requesters of that device's location. One aspect within the GEOPRIV WG is the precision of a device's ability to present its location coordinates might have a domain policy override the individual policy in the sense of maximum resolution possible. In other words, a user of a device might not mind providing a quite precise location return to a location request, but the local domain might not want that level of precision by its policy. In this case, the resolution value provided in the DHCP Reply can set this maximum precision value, perhaps allowing the user of the Target device to make the values more imprecise based on who is requesting their location. The document does not go further down this thought for good reason. 4.0 Calculations of Imprecision possible with the DHC LO The following examples for two different locations demonstrate how the Resolution values for Latitude, Longitude and Altitude can be used. 4.1 Location Object of "White House" (Example 1) The address was NOT picked for any political reason and can easily be found on the Internet or mapping software, but was picked as an easily identifiable location on our planet. Postal Address: White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Standing on the sidewalk, north side of White House, between driveways. Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 6 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 Latitude 38.89868 degrees North (or +38.89868 degrees) Using 2s complement, 34 bit fixed point, 25 bit fraction Latitude = 0x04dcc1fc8, Latitude = 0001001101110011000001111111001000 Longitude 77.03723 degrees West (or û77.03723 degrees) Using 2s complement, 34 bit fixed point, 25 bit fraction Longitude = 0xf65ecf031, Longitude = 1101100101111011001111000000110001 Altitude 15 In this example we are not inside a structure, therefore we will assume an altitude value of 15 meters, interpolated from the US Geological survey map, Washington West quadrangle. AltRes = 30, 0x1e, 011110 MU = 1, 0x01, 000001 Altitude = 15, 0x0F00, 00000000000000000000000001111100000000 If: LaRes is expressed as value 2 (0x02 or 000010) and LoRes is expressed as value 2 (0x02 or 000010), then it would describe a geo-location region that is north of the equator and extends from û1 degree (west of the meridian) to û128 degrees. This would include the area from approximately 600km south of Saltpond, Ghana, due north to the North Pole and approximately 4400km south- southwest of Los Angeles, CA due north to the North Pole. This would cover an area of about one-sixth of the globe, approximately 20 million square nm. If: LaRes is expressed as value 3 (0x03 or 000011) and LoRes is expressed as value 3, (0x03 or 000011) then it would describe a geo-location area that is north from the equator to 63 degrees north, and -65 degrees to û128 degrees longitude. This area includes south of a line from Anchorage, AL to eastern Nunavut, CN. and from the Amazons of northern Brazil to approximately 4400km south-southwest of Los Angeles, CA. This area would include North America, Central America, and parts of Venezuela and Columbia, except portions of Alaska and northern and eastern Canada, approximately 10 million square nm. If: LaRes is expressed as value 5 (0x05 or 000101) and LoRes is expressed as value 5 (0x05 or 000101), then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 32 north of the equator to latitude 48 and extends from û64 degrees to û80 degrees longitude. This is approximately an east-west boundary of a time zone, an area of approximately 700,000 square nm. If: LaRes is expressed as value 9 (0x09 or 001001) and LoRes is expressed as value 9 (0x09 or 001001), which includes all the integer bits, then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 38 north of the equator to latitude 39 and extends from Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 8 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 û77 degrees to û78 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 9600 square km (111.3km x 86.5km). If: LaRes is expressed as value 18 (0x12 or 010010) and LoRes is expressed as value 18 (0x12 or 010010), then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 38.8984375 north to latitude 38.9003906 and extends from û77.0390625 degrees to û77.0371094 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 36,600 square meters (169m x 217m). If: LaRes is expressed as value 22 (0x16 or 010110) and LoRes is expressed as value 22 (0x16 or 010110), then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 38.896816 north to latitude 38.8985596 and extends from û77.0372314 degrees to û77.0371094 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 143 square meters (10.5m x 13.6m). If: LaRes is expressed as value 28 (0x1c or 011100) and LoRes is expressed as value 28 (0x1c or 011100), then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 38.8986797 north to latitude 38.8986816 and extends from û77.0372314 degrees to û77.0372296 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 339 square centimeters (20.9cm x 16.23cm). If: LaRes is expressed as value 30 (0x1e or 011110) and LoRes is expressed as value 30 (0x1e or 011110), then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 38.8986797 north to latitude 38.8986802 and extends from û77.0372300 degrees to û77.0372296 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 19.5 square centimeters (50mm x 39mm). If: LaRes is expressed as value 34 (0x22 or 100010) and LoRes is expressed as value 34 (0x22 or 100010), then it would describe a geo-location area that is latitude 38.8986800 north to latitude 38.8986802 and extends from û77.0372300 degrees to û77.0372296 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 7.5 square millimeters (3.11mm x 2.42mm). In the (White House) example, the requirement of emergency responders in North America via their NENA Model Legislation [6], could be met by a LaRes value of 21 and a LoRes value of 20. This would yield a geo- location that is latitude 38.8984375 north to latitude 38.8988616 north and longitude û77.0371094 to longitude û77.0375977. This is an area of approximately 89 feet by 75 feet or 6669 square feet, which is very close to the 7000 square feet asked for by NENA. In this example a service provider could enforce that a device send a Location Object with this minimum amount of resolution for this particular location when calling emergency services. Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 8 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 4.2 Location Object of "Sears Tower" (Example 2) Postal Address: Sears Tower 103th Floor 233 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Viewing the Chicago area from the Observation Deck of the Sears Tower. Latitude 41.87884 degrees North (or +41.87884 degrees) Using 2s complement, 34 bit fixed point, 25 bit fraction Latitude = 0x053c1f751, Latitude = 0001010011110000011111011101010001 Longitude 87.63602 degrees West (or û87.63602 degrees) Using 2s complement, 34 bit fixed point, 25 bit fraction Longitude = 0xf50ba5b97, Longitude = 1101010000101110100101101110010111 Altitude 103 In this example we are inside a structure, therefore we will assume an altitude value of 103 to indicate the floor we are on. The measurement unit value is 2 indicating floors. The AltRes field would indicate that all bits in the Altitude field are true, as we want to accurately represent the floor of the structure where we are located. AltRes = 30, 0x1e, 011110 MU = 2, 0x02, 000010 Altitude = 103, 0x00006700, 000000000000000110011100000000 For the accuracy of the latitude and longitude, the best information available to us was supplied by a generic mapping service that shows a single geo-loc for all of the Sears Tower. Therefore we are going to show LaRes as value 18 (0x12 or 010010) and LoRes as value 18 (0x12 or 010010). This would be describing a geo-location area that is latitude 41.8769531 to latitude 41.8789062 and extends from û87.6367188 degrees to û87.6347657 degrees longitude. This is an area of approximately 373412 square feet (713.3 ft. x 523.5 ft.). 5.0 Security Considerations TBD 6.0 IANA Considerations This document has no IANA Considerations Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 9 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 7.0 References [1] Polk J., Schnizlein J., Linsner M., "DHCP Option for Geographic Location", Internet Draft, "Work in Progress", October 2002 [2] Cuellar J., Morris J., Mulligan D., "GEOPRIV Requirements", Internet Draft, "Work in Progress", June 2002 [3] Bradner S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997 [4] Droms R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997 [5] Patrick M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC 3046, January 2001 [6] NENA û National Emergency Number Association û www.nena.org - NENA Technical Information Document on Model Legislation Enhanced 911 for Multi-Line Telephone Systems (http://www.nena.org/9%2D1%2D1techstandards/TechInfoDocs/ MLTS_ModLeg_Nov200.PDF) 8.0 Author Information James M. Polk Cisco Systems 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike Richardson, Texas 75082 USA jmpolk@cisco.com John Schnizlein Cisco Systems 9123 Loughran Road Fort Washington, MD 20744 USA john.schnizlein@cisco.com Marc Linsner Cisco Systems Marco Island, FL 34145 USA marc.linsner@cisco.com "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (February 23rd, 2001). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 10 Internet Draft GEOPRIV/DHC LO Semantics Oct 25th, 2002 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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." The Expiration date for this Internet Draft is: April 25th, 2003 Polk/Schnizlein/Linsner Page 11