draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-11.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-12.txt 
ECRIT H. Schulzrinne ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia University Internet-Draft Columbia University
Intended status: Experimental H. Tschofenig Intended status: Experimental H. Tschofenig
Expires: December 22, 2011 Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: February 18, 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks
June 20, 2011 August 17, 2011
Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based
Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-11.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-12.txt
Abstract Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based
protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic
location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In
particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services. Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.
The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for The main data structure, the <mapping> element, used for
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 11
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> / 3. Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> /
<getMappingsResponse> Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 <getMappingsResponse> Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Pushing Mappings via <pushMappings> and 4. Pushing Mappings via <pushMappings> and
<pushMappingsResponse> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 <pushMappingsResponse> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. RelaxNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. RelaxNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
skipping to change at page 4, line 25 skipping to change at page 4, line 25
This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative
<mapping> elements between two entities (the LoST Sync source and the <mapping> elements between two entities (the LoST Sync source and the
LoST Sync destination). LoST Sync destination).
The LoST Sync mechanism can, for example, be used in the LoST The LoST Sync mechanism can, for example, be used in the LoST
architecture, as specified in the [RFC5582]. There, LoST servers act architecture, as specified in the [RFC5582]. There, LoST servers act
in different roles that cooperate to provide an ubiquitous, globally in different roles that cooperate to provide an ubiquitous, globally
scalable and resilient mapping service. In the LoST mapping scalable and resilient mapping service. In the LoST mapping
architecture, LoST servers can peer, i.e., have an on-going data architecture, LoST servers can peer, i.e., have an on-going data
exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up manually, exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up manually,
based on local policies. A server can peer with any number of other based on local policies. A LoST server may peer with any number of
servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides; resolvers peer other LoST servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides;
with forest guides and other resolvers (in the same cluster);
authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides and other authoritative mapping servers peer with forest guides and other
authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above or below authoritative servers, either in the same cluster or above or below
them in the tree. Authoritative mapping servers push coverage them in the tree. Authoritative mapping servers push coverage
regions "up" the tree, i.e., from child nodes to parent nodes. The regions "up" the tree, i.e., from child nodes to parent nodes. The
child informs the parent of the geospatial or civic region that it child informs the parent of the geospatial or civic region that it
covers for a specific service. covers for a specific service.
Consider a hypothetical deployent of LoST in two countries, we call Consider a hypothetical deployent of LoST in two countries, we call
them Austria and Finland. Austria, in our example, runs three them Austria and Finland. Austria, in our example, runs three
authoritative LoST servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna' authoritative LoST servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna'
skipping to change at page 11, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 8
This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping
architecture document [RFC5582]. architecture document [RFC5582].
Throughout this document we use the term LoST Sync source and LoST Throughout this document we use the term LoST Sync source and LoST
Sync destination to denote the protocol end points of the exchange. Sync destination to denote the protocol end points of the exchange.
The protocol is referred as LoST Sync within the text. The protocol is referred as LoST Sync within the text.
3. Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> / 3. Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> /
<getMappingsResponse> Exchange <getMappingsResponse> Exchange
3.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source 3.1. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination
A LoST Sync destination has two ways to retrieve mapping elements A LoST Sync destination has two ways to retrieve mapping elements
from a LoST Sync source. from a LoST Sync source.
1. A mechanisms that is suitable when no mappings are available on 1. A mechanisms that is suitable when no mappings are available on
the LoST Sync destination is to submit an empty the LoST Sync destination is to submit an empty
<getMappingsRequest> message, as shown in Figure 7. The intent <getMappingsRequest> message, as shown in Figure 7. The intent
by the LoST Sync destination thereby is to retrieve all mappings by the LoST Sync destination thereby is to retrieve all mappings
from the LoST Sync source. Note that the request does not from the LoST Sync source. Note that the request does not
propagate further to other nodes. propagate further to other nodes.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/