|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last Update: Jun 9, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3693
02/2004
(30 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Cuellar
J. Morris
D. Mulligan
J. Peterson
J. Polk |
|
Geopriv Requirements |
Location-based services, navigation applications, emergency services,
management of equipment in the field, and other location-dependent
services need geographic location information about a Target (such as
a user, resource or other entity). There is a need to securely
gather and transfer location information for location services, while
at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved.
This document focuses on the authorization, security and privacy
requirements for such location-dependent services. Specifically, it
describes the requirements for the Geopriv Location Object (LO) and
for the protocols that use this Location Object. This LO is
envisioned to be the primary data structure used in all Geopriv
protocol exchanges to securely transfer location data.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3694
02/2004
(18 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
M. Danley
D. Mulligan
J. Morris
J. Peterson |
|
Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol |
|
This document provides some analysis of threats against the Geopriv
protocol architecture. It focuses on protocol threats, threats that
result from the storage of data by entities in the architecture, and
threats posed by the abuse of information yielded by Geopriv. Some
security properties that meet these threats are enumerated as a
reference for Geopriv requirements.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4079
07/2005
(7 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Peterson |
|
A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects |
|
GEOPRIV defines the concept of a 'using protocol' -- a protocol that
carries GEOPRIV location objects. GEOPRIV also defines various
scenarios for the distribution of location objects that require the
concepts of subscriptions and asynchronous notifications. This
document examines some existing IETF work on the concept of presence,
shows how presence architectures map onto GEOPRIV architectures, and
moreover demonstrates that tools already developed for presence could
be reused to simplify the standardization and implementation of
GEOPRIV.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4119
12/2005
(24 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Peterson |
|
A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format |
|
This document describes an object format for carrying geographical
information on the Internet. This location object extends the
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF), which was designed for
communicating privacy-sensitive presence information and which has
similar properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4589
07/2006
(12 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
H. Schulzrinne
H. Tschofenig |
|
Location Types Registry |
|
This document creates a registry for describing the types of places a
human or end system might be found. The registry is then referenced
by other protocols that need a common set of location terms as
protocol constants. Examples of location terms defined in this
document include aircraft, office, and train station.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4745
02/2007
(32 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
H. Schulzrinne
J. Morris
H. Tschofenig
J. Cuellar
J. Polk
J. Rosenberg |
|
Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences |
This document defines a framework for authorization policies
controlling access to application-specific data. This framework
combines common location- and presence-specific authorization
aspects. An XML schema specifies the language in which common policy
rules are represented. The common policy framework can be extended
to other application domains.
This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type:
application/auth-policy+xml.
It also registers a new XML namespace and a new XML schema:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:common-policy,
urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:common-policy.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4776
11/2006
(19 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
H. Schulzrinne |
|
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option
for Civic Addresses Configuration Information |
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the
DHCP server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes
information about the country, administrative units such as states,
provinces, and cities, as well as street addresses, postal community
names, and building information. The option allows multiple
renditions of the same address in different scripts and languages.
RFC Editor Note:
RFC 4776 is being published to correct an error in the assignment of
the numeric value of the DHCPv6 option-code in RFC 4676 (Section
3.2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5139
02/2008
(14 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
M. Thomson
J. Winterbottom |
|
Revised Civic Location Format for PIDF Location Object (PIDF-LO) |
|
This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic
location. This format is designed for use with Presence Information
Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) documents and replaces the
civic location format in RFC 4119. The format is based on the civic
address definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on
the civic types defined for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP), and adds a hierarchy to address complex road identity
schemes. The format also includes support for the xml:lang language
tag and restricts the types of elements where appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5491
03/2009
(28 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Winterbottom
M. Thomson
H. Tschofenig |
|
GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations |
|
The Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
specification provides a flexible and versatile means to represent
location information. There are, however, circumstances that arise
when information needs to be constrained in how it is represented.
In these circumstances, the range of options that need to be
implemented are reduced. There is growing interest in being able to
use location information contained in a PIDF-LO for routing
applications. To allow successful interoperability between
applications, location information needs to be normative and more
tightly constrained than is currently specified in RFC 4119
(PIDF-LO). This document makes recommendations on how to constrain,
represent, and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO. It further
recommends a subset of Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 that is
mandatory to implement by applications involved in location-based
routing.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5580
08/2009
(53 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
H. Tschofenig
F. Adrangi
M. Jones
A. Lior
B. Aboba |
|
Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter |
This document describes procedures for conveying access-network
ownership and location information based on civic and geospatial
location formats in Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service
(RADIUS) and Diameter.
The distribution of location information is a privacy-sensitive task.
Dealing with mechanisms to preserve the user's privacy is important
and is addressed in this document.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5606
08/2009
(11 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Peterson
T. Hardie
J. Morris |
|
Implications of 'retransmission-allowed' for SIP Location Conveyance |
This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the
<retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information Data
Format for Location Objects (PIDF-LO) in cases where PIDF-LO is
conveyed by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It provides
recommendations for how the SIP location conveyance mechanism should
adapt to this ambiguity.
Documents standardizing the SIP location conveyance mechanisms will
be Standards-Track documents processed according to the usual SIP
process. This document is intended primarily to provide the SIP
working group with a statement of the consensus of the GEOPRIV
working group on this topic. It secondarily provides tutorial
information on the problem space for the general reader.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5687
03/2010
(21 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
H. Tschofenig
H. Schulzrinne |
|
GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Requirements |
|
This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements, and
captures design aspects for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 (L7) Location
Configuration Protocol (LCP). This protocol aims to allow an end
host to obtain location information, by value or by reference, from a
Location Information Server (LIS) that is located in the access
network. The obtained location information can then be used for a
variety of different protocols and purposes. For example, it can be
used as input to the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol
or to convey location within the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to
other entities.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5808
05/2010
(14 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
R. Marshall |
|
Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism |
|
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.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5870
06/2010
(23 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
A. Mayrhofer
C. Spanring |
|
A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations ('geo' URI) |
|
This document specifies a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for
geographic locations using the 'geo' scheme name. A 'geo' URI
identifies a physical location in a two- or three-dimensional
coordinate reference system in a compact, simple, human-readable, and
protocol-independent way. The default coordinate reference system
used is the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84).
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5985
09/2010
(39 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
M. Barnes |
|
HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) |
|
This document defines a Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7
LCP) and describes the use of HTTP and HTTP/TLS as transports for the
L7 LCP. The L7 LCP is used for retrieving location information from
a server within an access network. It includes options for
retrieving location information in two forms: by value and by
reference. The protocol is an extensible application-layer protocol
that is independent of the session layer.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5986
09/2010
(16 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
M. Thomson
J. Winterbottom |
|
Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS) |
|
Discovery of the correct Location Information Server (LIS) in the
local access network is necessary for Devices that wish to acquire
location information from the network. A method is described for the
discovery of a LIS in the access network serving a Device. Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) options for IP versions 4 and 6
are defined that specify a domain name. This domain name is then
used as input to a URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) resolution process.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Proposed Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
