Geopriv J. Winterbottom Internet-Draft M. Thomson Intended status: Standards Track Andrew Corporation Expires: January 15, 2009 H. Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks July 14, 2008 HELD Identity Extensions draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-06.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 January 15, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 Abstract When a Location Information Server receives a request for location information (using the locationRequest message), described in the base HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) specification, it uses the source IP address of arriving message as a pointer to the location determination process. This is appropriate in many environments. However, when an entity acting on behalf of the Target would like to request location information then the source IP address of the request will lead to wrong results. In other cases the IP address is not the only identifier that serves as an input to the location determination procedure. This document extends the HELD protocol to allow the location request message to carry additional identifiers assisting the location determination process. It defines a set of URIs for Target identifiers and an XML containment schema. This extension is used in conjunction with HELD to provide Target identification, and set of criteria of when to use this extensions are provided. Examples and usage in HELD message syntax are also shown. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Criteria for using on behalf of location requests . . . . . . 6 4. Identity Extension Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. URI Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.1. Ethernet MAC URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2. IP Address URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Device-provided identity extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. On behalf of requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. Identifier 'type' Attribute values . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.4. URI Type Attribute Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19 Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 1. Introduction Location Configuration Protocols, such as HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery], need to identify a Target in order to determine its location. The base HELD specification only provides Target identity through the IP address of the requesting Target, while [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] provides examples of where this may be insufficient. This memo defines a set of URIs and a containment schema that allows the entity requesting location information to indicate a Target identifier beyond the source IP address of the request. In addition to a Target providing additional information about itself in order to aid location determination, a trusted node can use the techniques described in this memo to request location information about a specific Target, on behalf of (OBO) that Target. Use cases for this functionality are described in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] and [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] and focus on environments where a call- server or proxy resides in the same administrative domain as the LIS, and the Target has either failed, or is unable, to provide location information when it is required to do so. This memo provides a set of criteria that can be applied by operators considering an OBO-based location deployment. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 2. Terminology This document reuses the term Target, as defined in [RFC3693]. This document uses the term Location Information Server, LIS as described in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 3. Criteria for using on behalf of location requests The general model for acquiring location in the Internet places the onus on the end-point to acquire its location prior to invoking a service that needs this information in order to operate correctly. There is general acceptance from a range of organizations and operators that this approach cannot ensure the operation of essential services in the short to medium term with current terminal and network deployments. Network operators do not, for the most part, control or own user-terminal equipment, which means that they are not in a position to ensure essential services will work correctly for legacy devices connected to the network and this presents a dilema that requires a standarized technical solution. The accepted approach is to have a trusted node be able to request location on- behalf-of of the end-point to facilitate the correct operation of services deemed essential by the local jurisdiction. Examples of essential services include, but are not limited to ambulance, law enforcement, and fire services. To support an on-behalf-of location request mechanism there is a need for a strong trust relationship between the access and service provider entities. This relationship should exist soley for the purposes of providing services considered essential by the jurisdiction. The essential service may be provided inside the local access network, placing the access network and service provider in same administrative domain. Alternatively, the essential service is provided by a jurisdictional authority that has the right to request the location information for a Target in an access network operating in its legal boundaries. In addition to a strong trust relationship the access and service providers need to agree on a Target identifier. This identifier must have the properties of allowing the essential service to identify the LIS in the serving access network, and allowing the LIS to identify the end-device in the access network. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 4. Identity Extension Details This section defines the details of the schema extension for HELD to support the inclusion of a Target identity in the form of a URI or typed-token. A set of URI definitions that can be used to specify these identities is also provided. 4.1. URI Definitions The URIs defined in this section are designed to identify a Target; they do not identify measurements or sighting data associated with a Target, such as the switch and port information to which the Target is attached. This information may, for example, be acquired using DHCP relay information [RFC3046] or LLDP [LLDP]. Device measurements and sighting data are described in [I-D.thomson-geopriv-held-measurements]. The identity provided may be transitory, such as an IP address that is leased from a DHCP server pool. The URIs in the following sub-sections are defined using ABNF (augmented Backus-Naur form) described in [RFC2234]. 4.1.1. Ethernet MAC URI This is the Ethernet hardware address of the device, and is defined as per the IEEE 802 specifications. The ABNF for this URI type is defined as: mac-uri = "mac:" 2*2HEXDIG 5*5macdig macdig = "-" 2*2HEXDIG This type of URI is, for example, used in RFC 4479 [RFC4479]. An example of its use is provided in Figure 5. 4.1.2. IP Address URIs This section provides the ABNF for IP version 4 and IP version 6 URIs. One application of this URI scheme is described in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps], where an outbound SIP proxy needs to make location requests to a LIS on behalf of a Target because, for some reason, the necessary information was not provided by the Target. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 ip-uri = "ip:" ipv4 / ipv6 ipv4 = "IPv4+" IPv4-Address IPv4-Address = 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT ipv6 = "IPv6+" hexpart [ ":" IPv4-Address ] hexpart = hexseq / hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] / "::" [ hexseq ] hexseq = hex4 *( ":" hex4) hex4 = 1*4HEXDIG An example of a location request including a URI in this form to identify the Target device is shown in Figure 3. geodetic ip:IPv4+192.0.2.5 Figure 3: HELD Location Request Using an IP Address Note that the URI types are not case sensitive and the iP:ipv4+ 192.0.2.5 is still a valid URI. 4.2. Schema This section defines a schema that is used to provide Target identifiers in a HELD location request. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 8] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 Figure 4: Schema Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 9] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 The schema provided in Figure 4 allows a URI and/or token to be provided so that a Target can identify itself by more than just its IP address. The URI can also include an optional "type" attribute so that URIs that might otherwise look the same can be distinguished based on their usage. For example sip:callee@example.com or sip:callee@example.com An IANA registry is established for defining uri token types, and this defined in Section 6.4. When the element is used the "type" attribute is mandatory as it tells the LIS or receiving entity how to interpret the identifier. An IANA registry is established for the central repository for recognized identifier types. The set of initial types is provided in Section 6.3. A HELD location request sent by a device using the schema shown in Figure 4 to provide its identity as a MAC URI would look similar to Figure 5. geodetic mac:01-ab-34-ef-69-0c Figure 5: HELD Location Request URI example Similarly a Target identifying itself using its DHCP client identifier (DHCP option 61 in [RFC2132]) in a location request to a LIS would send something similar to Figure 6. geodetic 035552764 Figure 6: HELD Location Request Identifier example Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 10] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 5. Security Considerations 5.1. Device-provided identity extensions Identity extensions proivded by the Target device are commonly provided to assist the LIS in location determination. Where the LIS is going to use this information it MUST be verifiable by the LIS, the choice to perform this verification or not is left to the operator of the service. A MAC address provided by a target device, for example, can be verified by performing a DHCP lease-query based described in [RFC4388]. Identity extensions such as tel uris and hostnames can be validated using network services such as enum and ldap. Information that cannot be verified, or is found to be false MUST be ignroed by the LIS. 5.2. On behalf of requests The on behalf of mechanism allows the access network provider to specify rules for location acqusition for essential local services. The requirement to implement and comply with these rules will often be outside the control of the access provider with legislation mandating adherence. In such circumstances connectivity to the access network by an end-device is an implicit acceptance of these usage rules. Providers of access networks that divulge location in an on behalf of manner should provide an indication of this in it terms and conditions allowing allowing the user of device the option of connecting or not. Where the network may use on behalf of location acqusition for non-essential services, the user of an end- device MUST have the option of restricting the divulging of location to essential services only. How this restriction occurs is outside the scope of this specification. The LIS MUST not accept on behalf of location requests from, or divulge location information to, any third-party that it cannot authenticate or authorize. In most cases on behalf of requests should be restricted to essential services legislated by the local juridiction. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 11] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 6. IANA Considerations This document registers an XML namespace and schema with IANA in accordance with guidelines in [RFC3688]. It also creates a new registry for device identity types, and stipulates how new types are to be added. 6.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id This section registers a new XML namespace, "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id", as per the guidelines in [RFC3688]. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), James Winterbottom (james.winterbottom@andrew.com). XML: BEGIN HELD Device Identity Extensions

Namespace for HELD Device Identity Extensions

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id

[[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX with the RFC number for this specification.]]

See RFCXXXX.

END 6.2. XML Schema Registration This section registers an XML schema as per the guidelines in [RFC3688]. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 12] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:id 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 Figure 4 of this document. 6.3. Identifier 'type' Attribute values This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for identifier 'type' attribute values. These are text strings that clarify how the value identifies the Device. Referring to [RFC2434] this registry operates under the "Expert Review" rule. The following identifier types are registered as part of this memo: o 'dhcpClientId' The DHCP client identifier as defined by DHCP option 61 in [RFC2132] o 'msisdn' The Mobile Station International Subscriber Dial Number. This is an E.164 number made up of 6 to 15 digits o 'imsi' The International Mobile Subscriber identifier. A unique identifier for GSM or UMTS mobile terminal made up of 6 to 15 digits that identify the country code, the network code and device. o 'imei' The International Mobile Equipment identifier. This is an electronic serial number for a mobile device and is consists of up to 15 digits o 'min' Mobile Identification Number. A unique equipment identifier assigned to CDMA handsets. o 'mdn' Mobile Dial Number. An E.164 number made up of 6 to 15 digits. o 'hostname' The hostname or FQDN of the device. o 'directoryNumber' The directory number of the device. 6.4. URI Type Attribute Values This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for uri 'type' attribute values. These are text strings that clarify what a URI actually identifies, and MUSt include the URI scheme to which the type applies. Referring to [RFC2434] this registry operates under Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 13] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 the "Expert Review" rule. The following identifier types are registered as part of this memo: o 'aor' The SIP address of record as defined [RFC3261]. Applies to 'sip:', 'sips:', 'pres:' o 'gruu' The Globally Routable User Agent URI (GRUU) as defined in [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu]. Applies to 'sip:', 'sips:' Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 14] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 7. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the NENA VoIP location working group for their assistance in the definition of the schema used in this document. Special thanks go to Barbara Stark, Guy Caron, Nadine Abbott, Jerome Grenier and Martin Dawson. Thanks also to Bob Sherry for requesting that URI-types be supported which led to the typedURI form. Thanks to Adam Muhlbauer and Eddy Corbett for providing further corrections. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 15] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 8. References 8.1. Normative references [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark, "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08 (work in progress), July 2008. [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-08 (work in progress), June 2008. [RFC2234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [I-D.ietf-sip-gruu] Rosenberg, J., "Obtaining and Using Globally Routable User Agent (UA) URIs (GRUU) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-gruu-15 (work in progress), October 2007. 8.2. Informative references [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. [RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. [I-D.ietf-ecrit-phonebcp] Rosen, B. and J. Polk, "Best Current Practice for Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling", draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-05 (work in progress), Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 16] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 July 2008. [I-D.thomson-geopriv-held-measurements] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Using Device-provided Location-Related Measurements in HELD", draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-02 (work in progress), May 2008. [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [LLDP] IEEE, "802.1AB, IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan area networks, Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery", June 2005. [RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC 3046, January 2001. [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 3966, December 2004. [RFC4479] Rosenberg, J., "A Data Model for Presence", RFC 4479, July 2006. [RFC4388] Woundy, R. and K. Kinnear, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Leasequery", RFC 4388, February 2006. Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 17] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 Authors' Addresses James Winterbottom Andrew Corporation PO Box U40 University of Wollongong, NSW 2500 AU Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com Martin Thomson Andrew Corporation PO Box U40 University of Wollongong, NSW 2500 AU Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com Hannes Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks Linnoitustie 6 Espoo 02600 Finland Phone: +358 (50) 4871445 Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 18] Internet-Draft HELD-ID-EXT July 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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). Winterbottom, et al. Expires January 15, 2009 [Page 19]