rfc5808
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Marshall, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5808 TCS
Category: Informational May 2010
ISSN: 2070-1721
Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism
Abstract
This document defines terminology and provides requirements relating
to the Location-by-Reference approach using a location Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) to handle location information within
signaling and other Internet messaging.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5808.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Marshall Informational [Page 1]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................5
3. Overview of Location-by-Reference ...............................6
3.1. Location URI Usage .........................................7
3.2. Location URI Expiration ....................................8
3.3. Location URI Authorization .................................8
3.4. Location URI Construction ..................................9
4. High-Level Requirements .........................................9
4.1. Requirements for a Location Configuration Protocol .........9
4.2. Requirements for a Location Dereference Protocol ..........11
5. Security Considerations ........................................12
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
7. References .....................................................13
7.1. Normative References ......................................13
7.2. Informative References ....................................13
Marshall Informational [Page 2]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
1. Introduction
All location-based services rely on ready access to location
information. Location information can be used in either a direct,
Location-by-Value (LbyV) approach or an indirect, Location-by-
Reference (LbyR) approach.
For LbyV, location information is conveyed directly in the form of a
Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) [RFC4119].
Using LbyV might be either infeasible or undesirable in some
circumstances. There are cases where LbyR is better able to address
location requirements for a specific architecture or application.
This document provides a list of requirements for use with the LbyR
approach, and leaves the LbyV model explicitly out of scope.
As justification for an LbyR model, consider the circumstance that in
some mobile networks it is not efficient for the end host to
periodically query the Location Information Server (LIS) for up-to-
date location information. This is especially the case when power
availability is a constraint or when a location update is not
immediately needed. Furthermore, the end host might want to delegate
the task of retrieving and publishing location information to a third
party, such as to a presence server. Additionally, in some
deployments, the network operator may not want to make location
information widely available. These kinds of location scenarios form
the basis of motivation for the LbyR model.
The concept of an LbyR mechanism is simple. An LbyR is made up of a
URI scheme, a domain, and a randomized component. This combination
of data elements, in the form of a URI, is referred to specifically
as a "location URI".
A location URI is thought of as a reference to the current location
of the Target, yet the location value might remain unchanged over
specific intervals of time for several reasons. The type of location
information returned as part of the dereferencing step may, for
example, be influenced by the following factors:
- Limitations in the process used to generate location information
mean that cached location might be used.
- Policy constraints may dictate that the location provided remains
fixed over time for specified Location Recipients. Without
additional information, a Location Recipient cannot assume that the
location information provided by any location URI is static, and
will never change.
Marshall Informational [Page 3]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
The LbyR mechanism works according to an information life cycle.
Within this life cycle, location URIs are considered temporary
identifiers, each undergoing the following uses: Creation;
Distribution; Conveyance; Dereference; and Termination. The use of a
location URI according to these various states is generally applied
in one of the following ways:
1. Creation of a location URI, within a location server, based on
some request for its creation.
2. Distribution of a location URI, via a Location Configuration
Protocol, between a Target and a location server.
3. Conveyance, applied to LbyR, for example in SIP (Session
Initiation Protocol), is the transporting of the location URI, in
this case, between any successive signaling nodes.
4. Dereference of a location URI, a request/response between a
client having a location URI and a location server holding the
location information that the location URI references.
5. Termination of a location URI, due to either expiration or
cancellation within a location server, and that is based on a
Target cancellation request or some other action, such as timer
expiration.
Note that this document makes no functional differentiation between a
Location Server (LS), per [RFC3693], and a Location Information
Server (LIS), as shown in [RFC5687], but may refer to either of them
as a location server interchangeably.
Location determination, as distinct from location configuration or
dereferencing, often includes topics related to manual provisioning
processes, automated location calculations based on a variety of
measurement techniques, and/or location transformations (e.g., geo-
coding), and is beyond the scope of this document.
Location Conveyance for either LbyR or LbyV, as defined within SIP
signaling is considered out of scope for this document. (See
[LOC-CONVEY] for an explanation of location conveyance for either
LbyR or LbyV scenarios.)
Except for location conveyance, the above stages in the LbyR life
cycle fall into one of two general categories of protocols, either a
Location Configuration Protocol or a Location Dereference Protocol.
The stages of LbyR Creation, Distribution, and Termination, are each
Marshall Informational [Page 4]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
found within the set of Location Configuration Protocols (LCPs). The
Dereference stage belongs solely to the set of Location Dereference
Protocols.
The issues around location configuration protocols have been
documented in a location configuration protocol problem statement and
requirements document [RFC5687]. There are currently several
examples of documented location configuration protocols, namely DHCP
[DHCP-LOC-URI], LLDP-MED [LLDP-MED], and HELD [HELD].
For dereferencing a location URI, depending on the type of reference
used, such as a HTTP/HTTPS or SIP Presence URI, different operations
can be performed. While an HTTP/HTTPS URI can be resolved to
location information, a SIP Presence URI provides further benefits
from the SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY concept that can additionally be combined
with location filters [LOC-FILTERS].
The structure of this document includes terminology, Section 2,
followed by a discussion of the basic elements that surround how a
location URI is used. These elements, or actors, are discussed in an
overview section, Section 3, accompanied by a graph, associated
processing steps, and a brief discussion around the use, expiration,
authorization, and construction of location URIs.
Requirements are outlined accordingly, separated as location
configuration requirements, Section 4.1, and location dereference
requirements, Section 4.2.
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 [RFC2119],
with the important qualification that, unless otherwise stated, these
terms apply to the design of the Location Configuration Protocol and
the Location Dereferencing Protocol, not its implementation or
application.
This document reuses the terminology of [RFC3693], such as Location
Server (LS), Location Recipient (LR), Rule Maker (RM), Target, and
Location Object (LO). Furthermore, the following terms are defined
in this document:
Location-by-Value (LbyV): Using location information in the form of a
location object (LO), such as a PIDF-LO.
Location-by-Reference (LbyR): Representing location information
indirectly using a location URI.
Marshall Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
Location Configuration Protocol: A protocol that is used by a Target
to acquire either a location object or a location URI from a
location configuration server, based on information unique to the
Target.
Location Dereference Protocol: A protocol that is used by a client to
query a location server, based on the location URI input, and that
returns location information.
Location URI: As defined within this document, an identifier that
serves as a reference to location information. A location URI is
provided by a location server, and is later used as input by a
dereference protocol to retrieve location information.
3. Overview of Location-by-Reference
This section describes the entities and interactions involved in the
LbyR model.
+---------+---------+ Location +-----------+
| | | Dereference | Location |
| LIS/LS +---------------+ Recipient |
| | | Protocol | |
+----+----+----+----+ (3) +-----+-----+
| * |
| Policy * |
Location | Exchange * |
Configuration | (*) * | Location
Protocol | +----+----+ | Conveyance
(1) | | Rule | | Protocol
| | Maker | | (2)
+----+----+ +---------+ |
| | |
| Target +-------------------------------+
| |
+---------+
Figure 1: Location Reference Entities and Interactions
Figure 1 shows the assumed communication model for both a Layer 7
location configuration protocol and a location dereference protocol.
(1) The Target (an end device) uses a location configuration protocol
to acquire a location reference from a LIS, which acts as (or is
able to access) an LS.
In the case where the Target is also a Rule Maker, the location
configuration protocol can be used to convey policy information.
Marshall Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
In the case where possession of a location URI is the only
required form of authorization (see Section 3.3), a policy is
implied whereby any requester is granted access to location
information. This does not preclude other means of providing
authorization policies.
A Target could also acquire a location URI from the LS directly
using alternative means, for example, the acquisition of a
presence Address of Record (AoR) to be used for location
information, in which case, it could be regarded as a location
URI.
(2) The Target conveys the location URI to the Location Recipient
(interface out of scope).
(3) The Location Recipient dereferences the location URI to acquire
location information from the LS.
The LS controls access to location information based on the policy
provided by the Rule Maker.
Note A. There is no requirement for using the same protocol in (1)
and (3).
Note B. Figure 1 includes the interaction between the owner of the
Target and the LIS to obtain Rule Maker policies. This
interaction needs to happen before the LIS will authorize
anything other than what is allowed based on default
policies in order to dereference a location request of the
Target. This communication path is out of scope for this
document.
Note C. The Target might take on the role of the Location Recipient,
in which case, it could attempt to dereference the location
URI itself, in order to obtain its own location information.
3.1. Location URI Usage
An example scenario of how the above location configuration and
location dereference steps might work using SIP is where a Target
obtains a location URI in the form of a subscription URI (e.g., a SIP
URI) via a location configuration protocol. In this case, the Target
is the same as the Recipient; therefore, the Target can subscribe to
the URI in order to be notified of its current location based on
subscription parameters. In the example, parameters are set up for a
specific Target/Recipient along with an expressed geospatial
boundary, so that the Target/Recipient receives an updated location
notification once the boundary is crossed (see [LOC-FILTERS]).
Marshall Informational [Page 7]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
3.2. Location URI Expiration
Location URIs may have an expiry associated with them, primarily for
security considerations, and generally in order for the LIS to keep
track of the location URIs that have been handed out, to know whether
a location URI is still valid once the LIS receives it in a request,
and for preventing a recipient of such a URI from being able to (in
some cases) permanently track a host. Expiration of a location URI
limits the time that accidental leaking of a location URI introduces.
Other justifications for expiration of location URIs include the
ability for a LIS to do garbage collection.
3.3. Location URI Authorization
How a location URI will ultimately be used within the dereference
step is an important consideration at the time the location URI is
requested via a location configuration protocol. The process of
dereferencing location URIs will be influenced by the specific
authorization model applied by the Location Information Server and
the URI scheme that indicates the protocol to be used to resolve the
reference to a location object.
Location URIs manifest themselves in a few different forms. The
different ways that a location URI can be represented are based on
local policy, and are depicted in the following four scenarios.
1. No location information included in the URI: As is typical, a
location URI is used to get location information. However, in
this case, the URI representation itself does not need to reveal
any specific information at all. Location information is
acquired by the dereferencing operation using a location URI.
2. URI does not identify a Target: By default, a location URI MUST
NOT reveal any information about the Target other than location
information. This is true for the URI itself (or in the document
acquired by dereferencing), unless policy explicitly permits
otherwise.
3. Access control authorization model: If this model is used, the
location URI MUST NOT include any location information in its
representation. Location URIs operating under this model could
be widely published to recipients that are not authorized to
receive this information.
4. Possession authorization model (the URI itself is a secret): If
this model is used, the location URI is confidential information
shared between the LIS/LS, the Target, and all authorized
Location Recipients. In this case, possession implies
Marshall Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
authorization. Because knowledge of the location URI is used to
authenticate and authorize access to location information, the
URI needs to include sufficient randomness to make guessing its
value difficult. A possession model URI can include location
information in its representation.
3.4. Location URI Construction
Given scenarios 2 and 4, above, and depending on local policy, a
location URI may be constructed in such a way as to make it difficult
to guess. Accordingly, the form of the URI is then constrained by
the degree of randomness and uniqueness applied to it. In this case,
it may be important to protect the actual location information from
inspection by an intermediate node. Construction of a location URI
in such a way as to not reveal any Target-specific information (e.g.,
user or device information), with the goal of making the location URI
appear bland, uninteresting, and generic, may be helpful to some
degree in order to keep location information more difficult to
detect. Thus, obfuscating the location URI in this way may provide
some level of safeguard against the undetected inspection and
unintended use of what would otherwise be evident location
information, since it forces a dereference operation at the location
dereference server, an important step for the purpose of providing
statistics, audit trails, and general logging for many different
kinds of location-based services.
4. High-Level Requirements
This document outlines the requirements for a Location by Reference
mechanism that can be used by a number of underlying protocols.
Requirements here address two general types of such protocols, a
general location configuration protocol and a general location
dereferencing protocol.
The requirements are broken into two sections.
4.1. Requirements for a Location Configuration Protocol
Below, we summarize high-level design requirements needed for a
location-by-reference mechanism as used within the location
configuration protocol.
C1. Location URI support: The location configuration protocol MUST
support a location reference in URI form.
Motivation: A standardized location reference mechanism increases
interoperability.
Marshall Informational [Page 9]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
C2. Location URI expiration: When a location URI has a limited
validity interval, its lifetime MUST be indicated.
Motivation: A location URI may not intend to represent a location
forever, and the identifier eventually may need to be recycled,
or may be subject to a specific window of validity, after which
the location reference fails to yield a location, or the location
is determined to be kept confidential.
C3. Location URI cancellation: The location configuration protocol
MUST support the ability to request a cancellation of a specific
location URI.
Motivation: If the Target determines that a location URI should
no longer be used to dereference a location, then there should be
a way to request that the location URI be nullified.
C4. Location information masking: The location URI MUST ensure, by
default, through randomization and uniqueness, that the location
URI does not contain location-information-specific components.
Motivation: It is important to keep any location information
masked from a casual observing node.
C5. Target identity protection: The location URI MUST NOT contain
information that identifies the Target (e.g., user or device).
Examples include phone extensions, badge numbers, and first or
last names.
Motivation: It is important to protect caller identity or contact
address from being included in the form of the location URI
itself when it is generated.
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.
Motivation: The Target requesting a location URI may request a
location URI that has a 'one-time-use' only characteristic, as
opposed to a location URI having multiple reuse capability. This
would allow the server to return an error with or without
location information during the subsequent dereference operation.
C7. Selective disclosure: The location configuration protocol MUST
provide a mechanism that allows the Rule Maker to control what
information is being disclosed about the Target.
Marshall Informational [Page 10]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
Motivation: The Rule Maker has to be in control of how much
information is revealed during the dereferencing step as part of
the privacy features.
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.
Motivation: Location URIs should be constructed in such a way
that an adversary cannot guess them and dereference them without
having previously obtained them from the Target.
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).
Motivation: Users don't always have such strict privacy
requirements, but may opt to specify their own location URI or
components to be included within a location URI.
4.2. Requirements for a Location Dereference Protocol
Below, we summarize high-level design requirements needed for a
location-by-reference mechanism as used within the location
dereference protocol.
D1. Location URI support: The location dereference protocol MUST
support a location reference in URI form.
Motivation: It is required that there be consistency of use
between location URI formats used in a configuration protocol and
those used by a dereference protocol.
D2. Authentication: The location dereference protocol MUST include
mechanisms to authenticate both the client and the server.
Motivation: Although the implementations must support
authentication of both parties, any given transaction has the
option not to authenticate one or both parties.
D3. Dereferenced location form: The value returned by the dereference
protocol MUST contain a well-formed PIDF-LO document.
Marshall Informational [Page 11]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
Motivation: This is in order to ensure that adequate privacy
rules can be adhered to, since the PIDF-LO format comprises the
necessary structures to maintain location privacy.
D4. Location URI repeated use: The location dereference protocol MUST
support the ability for the same location URI to be resolved more
than once, based on dereference server configuration.
Motivation: Through dereference server configuration, for
example, it may be useful to not only allow more than one
dereference request, but, in some cases, to also limit the number
of dereferencing attempts by a client.
D5. Location confidentiality: The location dereference protocol MUST
support confidentiality protection of messages sent between the
Location Recipient and the location server.
Motivation: The location URI indicates what type of security
protocol has to be provided. An example is a location URI using
a HTTPS URI scheme.
5. Security Considerations
The method of constructing the location URI to include randomized
components helps to prevent adversaries from obtaining location
information without ever retrieving a location URI. In the
possession model, a location URI, regardless of its construction, if
made publicly available, implies no safeguard against anyone being
able to dereference and get the location. Care has to be paid when
distributing such a location URI to the trusted location recipients.
When this aspect is of concern, the authorization model has to be
chosen. Even in this model, care has to be taken on how to construct
the authorization policies to ensure that only those parties have
access to location information that are considered trustworthy enough
to enforce the basic rule set that is attached to location
information in a PIDF-LO document.
Any location URI, by necessity, indicates the server (name) that
hosts the location information. Knowledge of the server in some
specific domain could therefore reveal something about the location
of the Target. This kind of threat may be mitigated somewhat by
introducing another layer of indirection: namely the use of a
(remote) presence server.
A covert channel for protocol message exchange is an important
consideration, given an example scenario where user A subscribes to
location information for user B, then every time A gets a location
update, an (external) observer of the subscription notification may
Marshall Informational [Page 12]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
know that B has moved. One mitigation of this is to have periodic
notification, so that user B may appear to have moved even when
static.
6. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the present IETF GEOPRIV working group chairs,
Alissa Cooper and Richard Barnes, past chairs, Robert Sparks, Andy
Newton, Allison Mankin, and Randall Gellens, who established a design
team that initiated this requirements work. I'd also like to thank
those original design team participants for their inputs, comments,
and insightful reviews. The design team included the following
folks: Richard Barnes, Martin Dawson, Keith Drage, Randall Gellens,
Ted Hardie, Cullen Jennings, Marc Linsner, Rohan Mahy, Allison
Mankin, Andrew Newton, Jon Peterson, James M. Polk, Brian Rosen, John
Schnizlein, Henning Schulzrinne, Barbara Stark, Hannes Tschofenig,
Martin Thomson, and James Winterbottom.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[DHCP-LOC-URI] Polk, J., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
IPv4 and IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI)", Work in Progress, March 2010.
[HELD] Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B.
Stark, "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", Work
in Progress, August 2009.
[LLDP-MED] Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA),
"ANSI/TIA-1057 Link Layer Discovery Protocol - Media
Endpoint Discovery", 2006.
[LOC-FILTERS] Mahy, R., Rosen, B., and H. Tschofenig, "Filtering
Location Notifications in the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", Work in Progress, March 2010.
[LOC-CONVEY] Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the
Session Initiation Protocol", Work in Progress,
February 2010.
Marshall Informational [Page 13]
RFC 5808 GEOPRIV LbyR Requirements May 2010
[RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J.,
and J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693,
February 2004.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location
Object Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[RFC5687] Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and
Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010.
Author's Address
Roger Marshall (editor)
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
2401 Elliott Avenue
2nd Floor
Seattle, WA 98121
US
Phone: +1 206 792 2424
EMail: rmarshall@telecomsys.com
URI: http://www.telecomsys.com
Marshall Informational [Page 14]
ERRATA
