idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits1560/draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors 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.) -- The document date (May 7, 2009) is 4762 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery has been published as RFC 5985 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-dhc-container-opt-05 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps has been published as RFC 5687 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements has been published as RFC 5808 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 GEOPRIV M. Thomson 3 Internet-Draft J. Winterbottom 4 Intended status: Standards Track Andrew 5 Expires: November 8, 2009 May 7, 2009 7 Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS) 8 draft-ietf-geopriv-lis-discovery-11 10 Status of This Memo 12 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 13 provisions of BCP 78 and 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 November 8, 2009. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 41 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 42 and restrictions with respect to this document. 44 Abstract 46 Discovery of the correct Location Information Server (LIS) in the 47 local access network is necessary for devices that wish to acquire 48 location information from the network. A method is described for the 49 discovery of a LIS in the access network serving a device. Dynamic 50 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) options for IP versions 4 and 6 51 are defined that specify a domain name. This domain name is then 52 used as input to a URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) resolution process. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 1.1. Discovery Procedure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2. LIS Discovery Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.1. Residential Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 2.2. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3. Access Network Domain Name DHCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 3.1. Domain Name Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 3.2. Access Network Domain Name DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . 7 65 3.3. Access Network Domain Name DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . 8 66 4. U-NAPTR Resolution of a LIS URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 4.1. Determining a Domain Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 6.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes . . . . . . 11 71 6.2. Registration of a Location Server Application Service 72 Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 6.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol 74 Tag for HELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 1. Introduction and Overview 82 The location of a device is a useful and sometimes necessary part of 83 many services. A Location Information Server (LIS) is responsible 84 for providing that location information to devices with an access 85 network. The LIS uses knowledge of the access network and its 86 physical topology to generate and serve location information to 87 devices. 89 Each access network requires specific knowledge about topology. 90 Therefore, it is important to discover the LIS that has the specific 91 knowledge necessary to locate a device. That is, the LIS that serves 92 the current access network. Automatic discovery is important where 93 there is any chance of movement outside a single access network. 94 Reliance on static configuration can lead to unexpected errors if a 95 device moves between access networks. 97 This document describes a process that a device can use to discover a 98 LIS. This process uses a DHCP option and the DNS. The product of 99 this discovery process is an http: or https: URI, which identifies a 100 LIS. 102 The URI result from the discovery process is suitable for location 103 configuration only; that is, the device MUST dereference the URI 104 using the process described in HELD 105 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]. URIs discovered in this 106 way are not "location URIs" [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements]; 107 dereferencing one of them provides the location of the requester 108 only. Devices MUST NOT embed these URIs in fields in other protocols 109 designed to carry the location of the device. 111 1.1. Discovery Procedure Overview 113 DHCP ([RFC2131], [RFC3315]) is a commonly used mechanism for 114 providing bootstrap configuration information allowing a device to 115 operate in a specific network environment. The bulk of DHCP 116 information is largely static; consisting of configuration 117 information that does not change over the period that the device is 118 attached to the network. Physical location information might change 119 over this time, however the address of the LIS does not. Thus, DHCP 120 is suitable for configuring a device with the address of a LIS. 122 This document defines a DHCP option that produces a domain name that 123 identifies the local access network in Section 3. 125 Section 4 describes a method that uses URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) 126 [RFC4848], a Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS) profile that 127 produces a URI for the LIS. The input to this process is provided by 128 the DHCP option. 130 For the LIS discovery DDDS application, an Application Service tag 131 "LIS" and an Application Protocol tag "HELD" are created and 132 registered with the IANA. Based on the domain name, this U-NAPTR 133 application uses the two tags to determine a URI for a LIS that 134 supports the HELD protocol. 136 1.2. Terminology 138 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 139 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 140 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 142 This document also uses the term "device" to refer to an end host, or 143 client consistent with its use in HELD. In HELD and RFC3693 144 [RFC3693] parlance, the Device is also the Target. 146 The terms "access network" refers to the network that a device 147 connects to for Internet access. The "access network provider" is 148 the entity that operates the access network. This is consistent with 149 the definition in [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] which combines the 150 Internet Access Provider (IAP) and Internet Service Provider (ISP). 151 The access network provider is responsible for allocating the device 152 a public IP address and for directly or indirectly providing a LIS 153 service. 155 2. LIS Discovery Procedure 157 A device that has multiple network interfaces could potentially be 158 served by a different access network on each interface, each with a 159 different LIS. The device SHOULD attempt to discover the LIS 160 applicable to each network interface, stopping when a LIS is 161 successfully discovered on any interface. 163 The LIS discovery procedure follows the following process: 165 1. Acquire the access network domain name DHCP option (Section 3). 167 This process might be repeated for each of the network interfaces 168 on the device. Domain names acquired from other sources might 169 also be added. 171 2. Apply U-NAPTR resolution (Section 4) to discover a LIS URI. 173 The U-NAPTR process is applied using each of the domain names as 174 input. 176 3. Verify that the LIS is able to provide location information. 178 The first URI that results in a successful response from the LIS 179 is used. 181 A device MUST support discovery using the access network domain name 182 DHCP option (Section 3) as input to U-NAPTR resolution (Section 4). 183 Other domain names MAY be used, as described in Section 4.1. 185 A device that discovers a LIS URI MUST attempt to verify that the LIS 186 is able to provide location information. For the HELD protocol, the 187 device verifies the URI by making a location request to the LIS. If 188 - at any time - the LIS responds to a request with the "notLocatable" 189 error code (see Section 4.3.2 of 190 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]), the device MUST continue 191 or restart the discovery process. A device SHOULD NOT make further 192 requests to a LIS that provides a "notLocatable" error until its 193 network attachment changes, or it discovers the LIS on an alternative 194 network interface. 196 Static configuration of a domain name or a LIS URI MAY be used if all 197 other discovery methods fail. Note that if a device has moved from 198 its customary location, static configuration might indicate a LIS 199 that is unable to provide accurate location information. 201 The product of the LIS discovery process for HELD is an "https:" or 202 "http:" URI. Nothing distinguishes this URI from other URIs with the 203 same scheme, aside from the fact that it is the product of this 204 process. Only URIs produced by the discovery process can be used for 205 location configuration using HELD. 207 2.1. Residential Gateways 209 The process described in this document is known to not work in a very 210 common deployment scenario. A fixed wireline scenario is described 211 in more detail in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps]. In 212 this fixed wireline environment an intervening residential gateway 213 exists between the device and the access network. If the residential 214 gateway does not provide this option to the devices it serves, those 215 devices are unable to discover a LIS. 217 Support of this specification by residential gateways ensures that 218 the devices they serve are able to acquire location information. In 219 many cases the residential gateway configures the devices it serves 220 using DHCP. A residential gateway is able to use DHCP to assist 221 devices in gaining access to their location information. This can be 222 accomplished by providing an access network domain name DHCP option 223 suitable for LIS discovery, or by acting as a LIS directly. To 224 actively assist devices, a residential gateway can either: 226 o acquire an access network domain name from the access network 227 provider (possibly using DHCP) and pass the resulting value to 228 devices; or 230 o discover a LIS on its external interface, then provide devices 231 with the domain name that was used to successfully discover the 232 LIS; or 234 o explicitly include configuration that refers to a particular LIS; 235 or 237 o act as a LIS and directly provide location information to the 238 devices it serves, including providing a means to discover this 239 service. 241 As with devices, configuration of a specific domain name or location 242 information is only accurate as long as the residential gateway does 243 not move. If a residential gateway that relies on configuration 244 rather than automatic discovery is moved, the devices it serves could 245 be provided with inaccurate information. Devices could be led to 246 discover a LIS that is unable to provide accurate location 247 information, or - if location is configured on the residential 248 gateway - the residential gateway could provide incorrect location 249 information. 251 [I-D.ietf-dhc-container-opt] might be used by an access network 252 provider to convey configuration information to a residential gateway 253 for use by the devices it serves. Support and use of this option is 254 RECOMMENDED for both residential gateways and devices. Option values 255 found within the container MUST be used after values that are 256 directly in the DHCP response. 258 2.2. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) 260 LIS discovery over a VPN network interface SHOULD NOT be performed. 261 A LIS discovered in this way is unlikely to have the information 262 necessary to determine an accurate location. 264 Not all interfaces connected to a VPN can be detected by devices or 265 the software running on them. A LIS MUST NOT provide location 266 information in response to requests that it can identify as 267 originating from a device on the remote end of a VPN tunnel, unless 268 it is able to accurately determine location. The "notLocatable" HELD 269 error code can be used to indicate to a device that discovery has 270 revealed an unsuitable LIS. This ensures that even if a device 271 discovers a LIS over the VPN, it does not rely on a LIS that is 272 unable to provide accurate location information. 274 3. Access Network Domain Name DHCP Option 276 DHCP provides a direct means for the access network provider to 277 configure a device. The access network domain name option identifies 278 a domain name that is suitable for service discovery within the 279 access network. This domain name is used as input to the U-NAPTR 280 resolution process for LIS discovery. 282 The domain name provided in this option is one owned by the access 283 network operator. This domain name is intended for use in 284 discovering services within the access network. 286 This document registers a DHCP option for the access network domain 287 name for both IPv4 and IPv6. 289 3.1. Domain Name Encoding 291 This section describes the encoding of the domain name used in the 292 DHCPv4 option defined in Section 3.2 and also used in the DHCPv6 293 option defined in Section 3.3. 295 The domain name is encoded according to Section 3.1 of [RFC1035]. 296 Each label is represented as a one-octet length field followed by 297 that number of octets. Since every domain name ends with the null 298 label of the root, a domain name is terminated by a length byte of 299 zero. The high-order two bits of every length octet MUST be zero, 300 and the remaining six bits of the length field limit the label to 63 301 octets or less. To simplify implementations, the total length of a 302 domain name (i.e., label octets and label length octets) is 303 restricted to 255 octets or less. 305 3.2. Access Network Domain Name DHCPv4 Option 307 This section defines a DHCP for IPv4 (DHCPv4) option for the domain 308 name associated with the access network. 310 Code Len Access Network Domain Name 311 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 312 | TBD | n | s1 | s2 | s3 | s4 | s5 | ... 313 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 315 Figure 1: Access Network Domain Name DHCPv4 Option 317 The values s1, s2, s3, etc. represent the domain name labels in the 318 domain name encoding. Note that the length field in the DHCPv4 319 option represents the length of the entire domain name encoding, 320 whereas the length fields in the domain name encoding (see Section 3) 321 is the length of a single domain name label. 323 Code: OPTION_V4_ACCESS_DOMAIN (TBD). [[IANA/RFC-Editor Note: Please 324 replace TBD with the assigned DHCPv4 option code, both here and in 325 Figure 1.]] 327 Length: The length of the entire access network domain name option 328 in octets. 330 Access Network Domain Name: The domain name associated with the 331 access network, encoded as described in Section 3.1. 333 A DHCPv4 client MAY request a access network domain name option in a 334 Parameter Request List option, as described in [RFC2131]. 336 This option contains a single domain name and, as such, MUST contain 337 precisely one root label. 339 3.3. Access Network Domain Name DHCPv6 Option 341 This section defines a DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for the domain 342 name associated with the access network. The DHCPv6 option for this 343 parameter is similarly formatted to the DHCPv4 option. 345 0 1 2 3 346 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 1 347 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 348 | OPTION_V6_ACCESS_DOMAIN | Length | 349 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 350 . Access Network Domain Name . 351 . ... . 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 354 Figure 2: DHCPv6 Access Network Domain Name Option 356 option-code: OPTION_V6_ACCESS_DOMAIN (TBD). [[IANA/RFC-Editor Note: 357 Please replace TBD with the assigned DHCPv6 option code.]] 359 option-length: The length of the entire access network domain name 360 option in octets. 362 option-value: The access network domain name, encoded as described 363 in Section 3.1. 365 A DHCPv6 client MAY request a access network domain name option in a 366 Options Request Option (ORO), as described in [RFC3315]. 368 This option contains a single domain name and, as such, MUST contain 369 precisely one root label. 371 4. U-NAPTR Resolution of a LIS URI 373 U-NAPTR [RFC4848] resolution for a LIS takes a domain name as input 374 and produces a URI that identifies the LIS. This process also 375 requires an Application Service tag and an Application Protocol tag, 376 which differentiate LIS-related NAPTR records from other records for 377 that domain. 379 Section 6.2 defines an Application Service tag of "LIS", which is 380 used to identify the location service for a given domain. The 381 Application Protocol tag "HELD", defined in Section 6.3, is used to 382 identify a LIS that understands the HELD protocol 383 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]. 385 The NAPTR records in the following example demonstrate the use of the 386 Application Service and Protocol tags. Iterative NAPTR resolution is 387 used to delegate responsibility for the LIS service from 388 "zonea.example.net." and "zoneb.example.net." to 389 "outsource.example.com.". 391 zonea.example.net. 392 ;; order pref flags 393 IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service 394 "" ; regex 395 outsource.example.com. ; replacement 396 ) 397 zoneb.example.net. 398 ;; order pref flags 399 IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service 400 "" ; regex 401 outsource.example.com. ; replacement 402 ) 403 outsource.example.com. 404 ;; order pref flags 405 IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service 406 "!*.!https://lis.example.org:4802/?c=ex!" ; regex 407 . ; replacement 408 ) 410 Figure 3: Sample LIS:HELD Service NAPTR Records 412 Details for the "LIS" Application Service tag and the "HELD" 413 Application Protocol tag are included in Section 6. 415 An "https:" LIS URI that is a product of U-NAPTR MUST be 416 authenticated using the domain name method described in Section 3.1 417 of RFC 2818 [RFC2818]. The domain name that is used in this 418 authentication is the one extracted from the URI, not the input to 419 the U-NAPTR resolution process. 421 4.1. Determining a Domain Name 423 The U-NAPTR resolution method described requires a domain name as 424 input. The access network domain name DHCP option (Section 3) 425 describes one source of this domain name. 427 If a device knows one or more alternative domain names that might be 428 used for discovery, it MAY repeat the U-NAPTR process using those 429 domain names as input. For instance, static configuration of a 430 device might be used to provide a device with a domain name. 432 Alternative domain names MUST NOT be used unless the access network 433 domain name option is unsuccessful or where external information 434 indicates that a particular domain name is to be used. For instance, 435 domain names for the device might be provided by a DHCP server 436 ([RFC4702] for DHCPv4, [RFC4704] for DHCPv6); DHCPv4 option 15 437 [RFC2131] could also be used as a source of a domain name suffix for 438 the device. However, these domain names could be provided without 439 considering their use for LIS discovery; therefore, many DHCP servers 440 do not provide a sensible value for these options. 442 5. Security Considerations 444 The address of a LIS is usually well-known within an access network; 445 therefore, interception of messages does not introduce any specific 446 concerns. 448 The primary attack against the methods described in this document is 449 one that would lead to impersonation of a LIS. The LIS is 450 responsible for providing location information and this information 451 is critical to a number of network services; furthermore, a device 452 does not necessarily have a prior relationship with a LIS. Several 453 methods are described here that can limit the probablity of, or 454 provide some protection against, such an attack. These methods MUST 455 be applied unless similar protections are in place, or in cases - 456 such as an emergency - where location information of dubious origin 457 is arguably better than none at all. 459 An attacker could attempt to compromise LIS discovery at any of three 460 stages: 462 1. providing a falsified domain name to be used as input to U-NAPTR 464 2. altering the DNS records used in U-NAPTR resolution 466 3. impersonation of the LIS 468 U-NAPTR is entirely dependent on its inputs. In falsifying a domain 469 name, an attacker avoids any later protections, bypassing them 470 entirely. To ensure that the access network domain name DHCP option 471 can be relied upon, preventing DHCP messages from being modified or 472 spoofed by attackers is necessary. Physical or link layer security 473 are commonplace methods that can reduce the possibility of such an 474 attack within an access network; alternatively, DHCP authentication 475 [RFC3118] can provide a degree of protection against modification or 476 spoofing. 478 The domain name that is used to authenticated the LIS is the domain 479 name in the URI that is the result of the U-NAPTR resolution. 480 Therefore, if an attacker were able to modify or spoof any of the DNS 481 records used in the DDDS resolution, this URI could be replaced by an 482 invalid URI. The application of DNS security (DNSSEC) [RFC4033] 483 provides a means to limit attacks that rely on modification of the 484 DNS records used in U-NAPTR resolution. Security considerations 485 specific to U-NAPTR are described in more detail in [RFC4848]. 487 An "https:" URI is authenticated using the method described in 488 Section 3.1 of [RFC2818]. The domain name used for this 489 authentication is the domain name in the URI resulting from U-NAPTR 490 resolution, not the input domain name as in [RFC3958]. Using the 491 domain name in the URI is more compatible with existing HTTP client 492 software, which authenticate servers based on the domain name in the 493 URI. 495 A LIS that is identified by an "http:" URI cannot be authenticated. 496 Use of unsecured HTTP also does not meet requirements in HELD for 497 confidentiality and integrity. If an "http:" URI is the product of 498 LIS discovery, this leaves devices vulnerable to several attacks. 499 Lower layer protections, such as layer 2 traffic separation might be 500 used to provide some guarantees. 502 6. IANA Considerations 504 6.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes 506 The IANA has assigned an option code of (TBD) for the DHCPv4 option 507 for an access network domain name option, as described in Section 3.2 508 of this document. 510 The IANA has assigned an option code of (TBD) for the DHCPv6 option 511 for an access network domain name option, as described in Section 3.3 512 of this document. 514 6.2. Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag 516 This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Service tag 517 for a LIS, as mandated by [RFC3958]. 519 Application Service Tag: LIS 521 Intended usage: Identifies a service that provides a device with its 522 location information. 524 Defining publication: RFCXXXX 526 Related publications: HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] 528 Contact information: The authors of this document 530 Author/Change controller: The IESG 532 6.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for 533 HELD 535 This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Protocol tag 536 for the HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] protocol, as 537 mandated by [RFC3958]. 539 Application Service Tag: HELD 541 Intended Usage: Identifies the HELD protocol. 543 Applicable Service Tag(s): LIS 545 Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s): U 547 Defining Publication: RFCXXXX 549 Related Publications: HELD [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] 551 Contact Information: The authors of this document 553 Author/Change Controller: The IESG 555 7. Acknowledgements 557 This document uses a mechanism that is largely identical to that in 558 [RFC5222] and [RFC5223]. The authors would like to thank Leslie 559 Daigle for her work on U-NAPTR; Peter Koch for feedback on how not to 560 use DNS for discovery; Andy Newton for constructive suggestions with 561 regards to document direction; Richard Barnes, Joe Salowey, Barbara 562 Stark, and Hannes Tschofenig for input and reviews; Dean Willis for 563 constructive feedback. 565 8. References 567 8.1. Normative References 569 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain 570 names - implementation and 571 specification", STD 13, 572 RFC 1035, November 1987. 574 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host 575 Configuration Protocol", 576 RFC 2131, March 1997. 578 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over 579 TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. 581 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., 582 Volz, B., Lemon, T., 583 Perkins, C., and M. 584 Carney, "Dynamic Host 585 Configuration Protocol for 586 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, 587 July 2003. 589 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., 590 Larson, M., Massey, D., 591 and S. Rose, "DNS Security 592 Introduction and 593 Requirements", RFC 4033, 594 March 2005. 596 [RFC4702] Stapp, M., Volz, B., and 597 Y. Rekhter, "The Dynamic 598 Host Configuration 599 Protocol (DHCP) Client 600 Fully Qualified Domain 601 Name (FQDN) Option", 602 RFC 4702, October 2006. 604 [RFC4704] Volz, B., "The Dynamic 605 Host Configuration 606 Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) 607 Client Fully Qualified 608 Domain Name (FQDN) 609 Option", RFC 4704, 610 October 2006. 612 [RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based 613 Application Service 614 Location Using URIs and 615 the Dynamic Delegation 616 Discovery Service (DDDS)", 617 RFC 4848, April 2007. 619 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery] Barnes, M., Winterbottom, 620 J., Thomson, M., and B. 621 Stark, "HTTP Enabled 622 Location Delivery (HELD)", 623 draft-ietf-geopriv-http- 624 location-delivery-13 (work 625 in progress), 626 February 2009. 628 [I-D.ietf-dhc-container-opt] Droms, R., "Container 629 Option for Server 630 Configuration", draft- 631 ietf-dhc-container-opt-05 632 (work in progress), 633 March 2009. 635 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words 636 for use in RFCs to 637 Indicate Requirement 638 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 639 March 1997. 641 8.2. Informative References 643 [RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, 644 "Authentication for DHCP 645 Messages", RFC 3118, 646 June 2001. 648 [RFC3693] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., 649 Mulligan, D., Peterson, 650 J., and J. Polk, "Geopriv 651 Requirements", RFC 3693, 652 February 2004. 654 [RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, 655 "Domain-Based Application 656 Service Location Using SRV 657 RRs and the Dynamic 658 Delegation Discovery 659 Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, 660 January 2005. 662 [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., 663 Schulzrinne, H., and H. 664 Tschofenig, "LoST: A 665 Location-to-Service 666 Translation Protocol", 667 RFC 5222, August 2008. 669 [RFC5223] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., 670 and H. Tschofenig, 671 "Discovering Location-to- 672 Service Translation (LoST) 673 Servers Using the Dynamic 674 Host Configuration 675 Protocol (DHCP)", 676 RFC 5223, August 2008. 678 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps] Tschofenig, H. and H. 679 Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV 680 Layer 7 Location 681 Configuration Protocol; 682 Problem Statement and 683 Requirements", draft-ietf- 684 geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-09 (work 685 in progress), 686 February 2009. 688 [I-D.ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements] Marshall, R., 689 "Requirements for a 690 Location-by-Reference 691 Mechanism", draft-ietf- 692 geopriv-lbyr-requirements- 693 07 (work in progress), 694 February 2009. 696 Authors' Addresses 698 Martin Thomson 699 Andrew 700 PO Box U40 701 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 702 AU 704 Phone: +61 2 4221 2915 705 EMail: martin.thomson@andrew.com 706 URI: http://www.andrew.com/ 708 James Winterbottom 709 Andrew 710 PO Box U40 711 Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500 712 AU 714 Phone: +61 2 4221 2938 715 EMail: james.winterbottom@andrew.com 716 URI: http://www.andrew.com/