Internet Draft James M. Polk Issued: March 10, 2000 Cisco Systems Expiration: September 10, 2000 Haitao Tang Nokia Spatial Location Protocol Location Server Authentication 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 Engi- neering 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. 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 [RFC-2119]. Polk draft-polk-slp-loc-auth-server-00.txt Page 1 Internet Draft Spatial Location Server Auth March 2000 Abstract This document describes the early considerations for a Spatial Location Server and issues that will need to be addressed when an IP Device that has determined its location (TBD in another document effort) requests, or is requested, to provide that information to a Spatial Location Server (SLS). Table of Contents Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.0 Mechanisms of the Spatial Location Server. . . . . . . . 2 3.0 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.0 Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.0 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.0 Author Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.0 Introduction This document describes the early considerations for a Spatial Location Server and issues that will need to be addressed when an IP Device that has determined its location (TBD in another document effort) and requests, or is requested, to provide that information to a Spatial Location Server (SLS). 2.0 Mechanisms of the Spatial Location Server First and foremost, each Spatial Location Server (SLS) will MUST determine its own location. This location discovery and determination will be performed in a manner outlined/ stipulated in the definitions of the Spatial Location Protocol (SLP) itself; which is covered by another I-D within this BOF. It appears likely a need for an Authentication Server, similar to a Security Server, that should be within the Network Domain of a SLP Location Server in order to validate its existence within that Domain. From this Authentication Server Concept, a Hierarchy can be obtained for authenticating to the next higher authority in a similar manner as a Certificate Authority Server scenario. This communications with either hierarchically parallel SLS servers for the purposes of back-up/fail-over, or up and down the overall hierarchy should be done utilizing IPsec [1]. Whether this is done with ESP [2] or AH [3] is up to the BOF to determine. Additionally, investigation should be Polk draft-polk-slp-loc-auth-server-00.txt Page 2 Internet Draft Spatial Location Server Auth March 2000 made into GLP [4] from the MMUSIC WG for similarities or possible slight modifications to that protocol which could allow its application here for this purpose; although other solutions/protocols providing this desired result should be mentioned to the authors of this document (who happen to be the chairs of this BOF) for investigation within the BOF. Once a domain has an SLS authenticated by its higher authority, it can establish boundaries either dynamically (not yet covered by this document or other I-D/RFC) or via manual configuration from its domain administrator. These boundaries will be repre- sented by the BOF/WG agreed upon coordinate Legend for SLP. The following is an early potential list, in no particular order and easily a subset of the possibilities, of coordinate mecha- nisms/values, where reference accuracy and valid time must associated: * X, Y, Z * Long., Lat., Alt. * Planet, Country, State/Province, City/town, street, building, zip code, floor, quadrant of floor, office/ cube number * To geographic area like a floor, part of a floor, a building a city () Known additional or replacement identification information could include: * Relation to directly attached L2 Switch/Router * Relative or absolute location to any of the above items * Perhaps a remote site relative to a corporate site * Residence or company name As a new IP device comes on-line within a domain that either has, or mandates, SLP, it will (likely) determine if an SLS exists via DNS query. A 'yet-to-be-decided' method of authenti- cation of the Server from the new IP device's point of view should be required. If successful, it should then either trans- mit or reply, respectively, its location based on the performed function of SLP to that SLS server. Again, with a 'yet-to-be- decided' method of authentication should be performed, this time from the server's point of view that this is a via IP device for this domain. Polk draft-polk-slp-loc-auth-server-00.txt Page 3 Internet Draft Spatial Location Server Auth March 2000 3.0 IANA Considerations The authors don't believe there are any within this document at this time. 4.0 Security Considerations There is a possibility of misuse of this protocol. This truly has the potential of a "Big-Brother" scenario. If a malicious attack occurred to the SLS, all IP devices within that domain would have their (as best as SLP can deduce) location discovered for whatever publication or distribution that individual wanted. Highly sensitive areas such as research facilities and govern- ment agencies should have a paranoid security view of this protocol's misuse. Yet, in many ways, the benefits of appli- catons such as e911 could outweigh the potential dangers of its possible misuse. Though, methods to prevent or avoid the possible misuses should be considered. The privacy issues and their related usability issues should also be investigated. The authors think these are a part of the crucial requirements for the spatial location effort. 5.0 References: [1] RFC2401 "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" S. Kent and Ran Atkinson, November 1998 [2] RFC2406 "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)" S. Kent and Ran Atkinson, November 1998 [3] RFC2402 "IP Authentication Header (AH)" S. Kent and Ran Atkinson, November 1998 [4] Internet Draft "draft-ietf-iptel-gwloc-framework-06.txt" J.Rosenberg, H.Schulzrinne November 29, 1999 "work-in- progress" 6.0 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Rohan Mahy who made comments and suggestions contributing to this document. Polk draft-polk-slp-loc-auth-server-00.txt Page 4 Internet Draft Spatial Location Server Auth March 2000 7.0 Author Information James M. Polk Cisco Systems 18581 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75287, US jmpolk@cisco.com Haitao Tang Nokia Research Center Itamerenkatu 11-13 FIN-00180, Helsinki, Finland haitao.tang@nokia.com "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organi- zations, 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: September 10, 2000 Polk draft-polk-slp-loc-auth-server-00.txt Page 5 Internet Draft Spatial Location Server Auth March 2000