idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits40232/draft-hardie-geopriv-https-strawman-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 13. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 191. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 168. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 175. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 181. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 220 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC 2119' on line 49 == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 145, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '9' is defined on line 148, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group T. Hardie 2 Internet-Draft Qualcomm, Inc. 3 Expires: January 30, 2007 5 A Strawman proposal for HTTPS as a PIDF-LO Transport Protocol 6 draft-hardie-geopriv-https-strawman-00.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 11 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 12 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 13 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 30, 2007. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 37 Abstract 39 This document describes a strawman approach to using HTTP (HTTP) 40 over TLS (TLS) with Digest Authentication to transport PIDF-LO 41 (RFC 4119) objects. It is a GEOPRIV transport protocol as 42 described in section 5.2 or RFC 3693 (RFC 3693) 44 1. Requirements notation 46 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 47 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 48 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. 50 2. Introduction 52 This document describes a strawman approach for HTTP to transport 53 PIDF-LO objects. RFC 3693, Section 5.2 says the following about 54 Geopriv transport protocols: 56 "A protocol that just transports the LO as a string of bits, without 57 looking at them (like an IP storage protocol could do), is not a 58 using protocol, but only a transport protocol. Nevertheless, the 59 entity or protocol that caused the transport protocol to move the 60 LO is responsible for the appropriate distribution, protection, 61 usage, retention, and storage of the LO based on the rules that 62 apply to that LO." 64 While it might be possible to describe HTTP as a transport protocol 65 and punt all of the requirements to the layer above HTTP, this 66 document describes a layering of HTTP over TLS with Digest 67 Authentication in use between client and server, so that a 68 common set of mechanisms for privacy and authentication are 69 established. 71 3. Applicability Statement 73 HTTP can be used as a substrate to a number of different applications, 74 and defining a set of guidelines for the transport of PIDF-LO for 75 any application which might use HTTP would be difficult or impossible. 76 This document does not attempt that task. Instead, it is limited in 77 applicability to the case where a client uses an HTTP GET request 78 to retrieve a PIDF-LO object from a server or uses HTTP PUT to 79 publish a PIDF-LO object to a server. No other functionality 80 is covered. This document does not describe how you would determine 81 the URI of the PIDF=LO document or the appropriate server to query. 83 This document does not describe HTTP as a "using protocol" which, 84 in GeoPRIV terms, is a protocol which "uses (reads or modifies) 85 the Location Object". 87 4. Steps for retrieval 89 4.1 The client uses HTTPS to connect to the server. 91 The client establishes an HTTPS connection to the server, as 92 described in RFC 2818. At the TLS layer, the use of 93 TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL MUST NOT be used as the CipherSuite. 95 4.2 The client authenticates to the server. 97 The client authenticates to the server using HTTP's digest 98 authentication mechanism as described in RFC 2617 and updated 99 by the errata. 101 4.3 The client retrieves the resource. 103 The client retrieves the PIDF-LO resource using an HTTP GET 104 request. 106 5. Steps for publication. 108 5.1 The client uses HTTPS to connect to the server. 110 The client establishes an HTTPS connection to the server, as 111 described in RFC 2818. At the TLS layer, the use of 112 TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL MUST NOT be used as the CipherSuite. 114 5.2 The client authenticates to the server. 116 The client authenticates to the server using HTTP's digest 117 authentication mechanism as described in RFC 2617 and updated 118 by the errata. 120 5.3 The client publishes the resource. 122 The client publishes the PIDF-LO resource using an HTTP PUT 123 request. 125 6. IANA Considerations 127 This document does not imply any actions for IANA. 129 7. Security Considerations 131 This document presumes that the use of TLS as substrate to HTTP 132 is sufficient to protect the privacy of the PIDF-LO content while 133 in flight. It also presumes that Digest Authentication, combined 134 with the TLS-layer authentication, is sufficient to enable a client 135 and server to authenticate to one another. There is ongoing work 136 to update Digest Authentication, and those may eventually require 137 an update to the recommended authentication method. 139 8. References 141 (Citations incomplete; to be completed as above) 143 9.1 Normative References 145 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 146 Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. 148 [9] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format", 149 RFC 4119, December 2005. 151 9.2 Informative References 153 Author's Addresses 155 Ted Hardie 156 Qualcomm, Inc. 157 Email: hardie@qualcomm.com 159 Intellectual Property Statement 161 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 162 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 163 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 164 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 165 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 166 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 167 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 168 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 170 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 171 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 172 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 173 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 174 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 175 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 177 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 178 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 179 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 180 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 181 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 183 Disclaimer of Validity 185 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 186 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 187 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 188 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 189 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 190 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 191 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 193 Copyright Statement 195 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 196 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 197 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 199 Acknowledgment 201 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 202 Internet Society.