draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-15.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16.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: July 14, 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: July 16, 2012 Nokia Siemens Networks
January 11, 2012 January 13, 2012
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-15.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16.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 July 14, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up manually, exchange relationship. Peering relationships are set up manually,
based on local policies. A LoST server may peer with any number of based on local policies. A LoST server may peer with any number of
other LoST servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides; other LoST servers. Forest guides peer with other forest guides;
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, for
them Austria and Finland. Austria, in our example, runs three example Austria and Finland. Austria, in our example, runs three
authoritative mapping servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna' authoritative mapping servers labeled as 'East', 'West' and 'Vienna'
whereby the former two cover the entire country expect for Vienna, whereby the former two cover the entire country expect for Vienna,
which is covered by a separate LoST server. There may be other which is covered by a separate LoST server. There may be other
caching LoST servers run by ISPs, universities, and VSPs but they are caching LoST servers run by ISPs, universities, and VSPs but they are
not relevant for this illustration. Finland, on the other hand, not relevant for this illustration. Finland, on the other hand,
decided to only deploy a single LoST server that also acts as a decided to only deploy a single LoST server that also acts as a
Forest Guide. For this simplistic illustration we assume that only Forest Guide. For this simplistic illustration we assume that only
one service is available, namely 'urn:service:sos' since otherwise one service is available, namely 'urn:service:sos' since otherwise
the number of stored mappings would have to be multiplied by the the number of stored mappings would have to be multiplied by the
number of used services. number of used services.
skipping to change at page 8, line 43 skipping to change at page 8, line 43
|----------------------------->| |----------------------------->|
| | | |
| <getMappingsResponse> | | <getMappingsResponse> |
|<-----------------------------| |<-----------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Figure 5: Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> Message Figure 5: Querying for Mappings with a <getMappingsRequest> Message
Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 5 Node B issuing the Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 5 Node B is issuing
first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client (with HTTP as the first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client and Node A
selected transport) and Node A plays the role of the HTTPS server. plays the role of the HTTPS server.
The <pushMappingsRequest> exchange allows a LoST Sync source to push The <pushMappingsRequest> exchange allows a LoST Sync source to push
mappings to LoST Sync destination. The assumption is being made that mappings to LoST Sync destination. The assumption is being made that
Node A and B have previously been configured in a way that they push Node A and B have previously been configured in a way that they push
mappings in such a fashion and that Node A maintains state about the mappings in such a fashion and that Node A maintains state about the
mappings have to be pushed to Node B. No subscribe mechanism is mappings have to be pushed to Node B. No subscribe mechanism is
defined in this document that would allow Node B to tell Node A about defined in this document that would allow Node B to tell Node A about
what mappings it is interested nor a mechanism for learning to which what mappings it is interested nor a mechanism for learning to which
entities mappings have to be pushed. entities mappings have to be pushed.
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
| | | |
| <pushMappingsResponse> | | <pushMappingsResponse> |
|<-----------------------------| |<-----------------------------|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Figure 6: Pushing Mappings with a <pushMappingsRequest> Message Figure 6: Pushing Mappings with a <pushMappingsRequest> Message
Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 6 Node A issuing the Note that in the exchange illustrated in Figure 6 Node A issuing the
first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client (with HTTP as first request and plays the role of the HTTPS client and Node B plays
selected transport) and Node B plays the role of the HTTPS server. the role of the HTTPS server.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping This document reuses terminology introduced by the mapping
architecture document [RFC5582], such as 'coverage region', 'forest architecture document [RFC5582], such as 'coverage region', 'forest
guide', 'mapping', 'authoritative mapping server', etc.. guide', 'mapping', 'authoritative mapping server', etc..
skipping to change at page 11, line 32 skipping to change at page 11, line 32
these mappings have been updated in the meanwhile. The policy these mappings have been updated in the meanwhile. The policy
when to poll for updated mapping information is outside the scope when to poll for updated mapping information is outside the scope
of this document. The <getMappingsRequest> message with one or of this document. The <getMappingsRequest> message with one or
multiple <exists> child element(s) allows to reduce the number of multiple <exists> child element(s) allows to reduce the number of
returned mappings to those that have been updated and also to returned mappings to those that have been updated and also to
those that are missing. those that are missing.
In response to the <getMappingsRequest> message the LoST Sync In response to the <getMappingsRequest> message the LoST Sync
destination waits for the <getMappingsResponse> message. In case of destination waits for the <getMappingsResponse> message. In case of
a successful response the LoST Sync destination stores the received a successful response the LoST Sync destination stores the received
mappings and determines which mappings to replace. mappings and determines which mappings to update.
3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source 3.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Source
When a LoST Sync source receives an empty <getMappingsRequest> When a LoST Sync source receives an empty <getMappingsRequest>
message then all locally available mappings MUST be returned. message then all locally available mappings MUST be returned.
When a LoST Sync source receives a <getMappingsRequest> message with When a LoST Sync source receives a <getMappingsRequest> message with
one or multiple <exists> child element(s) then it MUST consult with one or multiple <exists> child element(s) then it MUST consult with
the local mapping database to determine whether any of the mappings the local mapping database to determine whether any of the mappings
of the client is stale and whether there are mappings locally that of the client is stale and whether there are mappings locally that
skipping to change at page 12, line 16 skipping to change at page 12, line 16
The first example shows an empty <getMappingsRequest> message that The first example shows an empty <getMappingsRequest> message that
would retrieve all locally stored mappings at the LoST Sync source. would retrieve all locally stored mappings at the LoST Sync source.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/> <getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/>
Figure 7: Example of empty <getMappingsRequest> message Figure 7: Example of empty <getMappingsRequest> message
A further example request is shown in Figure 8 and the corresponding A further example request is shown in Figure 8 and the corresponding
response is depicted in Figure 9. In this example a request is made response is depicted in Figure 9. In this example the
for a specific mapping (with source="authoritative.bar.example" and <getMappingsRequest> element contains information about the mapping
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66") that is more recent than that is locally available to the client inside the <mapping-
"2006-11-01T01:00:00Z" as well as any missing mapping. fingerprint> element (with source="authoritative.bar.example",
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66", and lastUpdated="2006-
11-01T01:00:00Z"). The query asks for mappings that are more recent
than the available one as well as any missing mapping.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"> <getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">
<exists> <exists>
<mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example" <mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66" sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z"> lastUpdated="2006-11-01T01:00:00Z">
</mapping-fingerprint> </mapping-fingerprint>
</exists> </exists>
</getMappingsRequest> </getMappingsRequest>
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 14, line 45
01T01:00:00Z" is requested to be deleted. Note that the 'expires' 01T01:00:00Z" is requested to be deleted. Note that the 'expires'
attribute is required per schema definition but will be ignored in attribute is required per schema definition but will be ignored in
processing the request on the receiving side. A sync source may want processing the request on the receiving side. A sync source may want
to delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but has to to delete the mapping from its internal mapping database, but has to
remember which peers it has distributed this update to unless it has remember which peers it has distributed this update to unless it has
other ways to ensure that databases do not get out of sync. other ways to ensure that databases do not get out of sync.
4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination 4.2. Behavior of the LoST Sync Destination
When a LoST Sync destination receives a <pushMappingsRequest> message When a LoST Sync destination receives a <pushMappingsRequest> message
then a newly received mapping M' MUST replace an existing mapping M then the cache with the existing mappings is inspected to determine
if all of the following conditions hold: whether the received mapping should lead to an update of an already
existing mapping, should create a new mapping in the cache, or should
1. M'.source equals M.source be discarded.
2. M'.sourceID' equals M.sourceID A newly received mapping MUST update an existing one having the same
3. M'.lastUpdated is greater than M.lastUpdated 'source' and 'sourceId' and a more recent time in 'lastUpdated'.
If the received mapping M' does not update any existing mapping M If the received mapping does not match with any existing mapping
then it MUST be added to the local cache as an independent mapping. based on the 'source' and 'sourceId' then it MUST be added to the
local cache as an independent mapping.
If a <pushMappingsRequest> message with an empty <mapping> element is If a <pushMappingsRequest> message with an empty <mapping> element is
received then a corresponding mapping has to be determined based on received then a corresponding mapping has to be determined based on
the 'source', 'sourceID' and 'lastUpdated' attributes. If a mapping the 'source', and the 'sourceID'.
has been found then it MUST be deleted. If no mapping can be
identified then an <errors> response MUST be returned that contains If no mapping can be identified then an <errors> response MUST be
the <notDeleted> child element. The <notDeleted> element MAY carry a returned that contains the <notDeleted> child element. The
<message> element and MUST contain the <mapping> element(s) that <notDeleted> element MAY contain a 'message' attribute with an error
caused the error. description used for debugging purposes. The <notDeleted> element
MUST contain the <mapping> element(s) that caused the error.
The response to a <pushMappingsRequest> request is a The response to a <pushMappingsRequest> request is a
<pushMappingsResponse> message. With this specification, a <pushMappingsResponse> message. With this specification, a
successful response message returns no additional elements, whereas successful response message returns no additional elements, whereas
an <errors> response is returned in the response message, if the an <errors> response is returned in the response message, if the
request failed. Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError> request failed. Only the <badRequest>, <forbidden>, <internalError>
or <serverTimeout> errors defined in Section 13.1 of [RFC5222], are or <serverTimeout> errors defined in Section 13.1 of [RFC5222], are
used. The <redirect> and <warnings> messages are not used for this used. The <redirect> and <warnings> messages are not used for this
query/response. query/response.
skipping to change at page 15, line 39 skipping to change at page 15, line 40
several other nodes. This is unavoidable, but generally only imposes several other nodes. This is unavoidable, but generally only imposes
a modest overhead. (It would be possible to create a spanning tree a modest overhead. (It would be possible to create a spanning tree
in the same fashion as IP multicast, but the complexity does not seem in the same fashion as IP multicast, but the complexity does not seem
warranted, given the relatively low volume of data.) warranted, given the relatively low volume of data.)
4.3. Example 4.3. Example
An example is shown in Figure 10. Image a LoST node that obtained An example is shown in Figure 10. Image a LoST node that obtained
two new mappings identified as follows: two new mappings identified as follows:
o source="authoritative.example" o
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66" lastUpdated="2008-11-
26T01:00:00Z"
o source="authoritative.example" source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111" lastUpdated="2008-11- sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66"
01T01:00:00Z" lastUpdated="2008-11-26T01:00:00Z"
o
source="authoritative.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb606011111111111"
lastUpdated="2008-11-01T01:00:00Z"
These two mappings have to be added to the peer's mapping database. These two mappings have to be added to the peer's mapping database.
Additionally, the following mapping has to be deleted: Additionally, the following mapping has to be deleted:
o source="nj.us.example" sourceId="123" lastUpdated="2008-11- o source="nj.us.example" sourceId="123" lastUpdated="2008-11-
01T01:00:00Z" 01T01:00:00Z"
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sync:pushMappings <sync:pushMappings
skipping to change at page 19, line 16 skipping to change at page 19, line 16
LoST Sync needs an underlying protocol transport mechanism to carry LoST Sync needs an underlying protocol transport mechanism to carry
requests and responses. This document uses HTTPS as a transport to requests and responses. This document uses HTTPS as a transport to
exchange XML documents. No fallback to HTTP is provided. exchange XML documents. No fallback to HTTP is provided.
When using HTTP-over-TLS [RFC2818], LoST Sync messages use the POST When using HTTP-over-TLS [RFC2818], LoST Sync messages use the POST
method. Request MUST use the Cache-Control response directive "no- method. Request MUST use the Cache-Control response directive "no-
cache". cache".
All LoST Sync responses, including those indicating a LoST warning or All LoST Sync responses, including those indicating a LoST warning or
error, are carried in 2xx responses, typically 200 (OK). Other 2xx error, are carried in 2xx responses, typically 200 (OK). 3xx, 4xx and
responses, in particular 203 (Non-authoritative information) may be 5xx HTTP response codes indicates that the request itself failed or
returned by HTTP caches that disregard the caching instructions. 3xx, was redirected; these responses do not contain any LoST Sync XML
4xx and 5xx HTTP response codes indicates that the HTTP request elements.
itself failed or was redirected; these responses do not contain any
LoST Sync XML elements.
6. RelaxNG 6. RelaxNG
Note: In order to avoid copying pattern definitions from the LoST Note: In order to avoid copying pattern definitions from the LoST
Relax NG schema [RFC5222] to this document we include it as Relax NG schema [RFC5222] to this document we include it as
"lost.rng" (XML syntax) in the Relax NG schema below. "lost.rng" (XML syntax) in the Relax NG schema below.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<grammar ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1" <grammar ns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
skipping to change at page 22, line 29 skipping to change at page 22, line 29
\ / \ /
C C
Figure 13: Synchronization Configuration Example Figure 13: Synchronization Configuration Example
Now, imagine that server A adds a new mapping. This mapping is Now, imagine that server A adds a new mapping. This mapping is
uniquely identified by the combination of "source", "sourceid" and uniquely identified by the combination of "source", "sourceid" and
"last updated". Assume that A would push this new mapping to B and "last updated". Assume that A would push this new mapping to B and
C. When B obtained this new mapping it would find out that it has to C. When B obtained this new mapping it would find out that it has to
distribute it to its peer C. C would also want to distribute the distribute it to its peer C. C would also want to distribute the
mapping to B (and vice versa). If the originally mapping with the mapping to B. If the original mapping with the "source", "sourceid"
"source", "sourceid" and "last updated" is not modified by either B and "last updated" is not modified by either B or C then these two
or C then these two servers would recognize that they already possess servers would recognize that they already possess the mapping and can
the mapping and can ignore the update. ignore the update.
It is important that implementations MUST NOT modify mappings they It is important that implementations MUST NOT modify mappings they
receive. An entity acting maliciously would, however, intentially receive. An entity acting maliciously would, however, intentially
modify mappings or inject bogus mappings. To avoid the possibility modify mappings or inject bogus mappings. To avoid the possibility
of an untrustworthy member claiming a coverage region that it is not of an untrustworthy member claiming a coverage region that it is not
authorized for, any node introducing a new service boundary MUST sign authorized for, authoritative mapping server MUST sign mappings they
the object by protecting the data with an XML digital signature distribute using an XML digital signature
[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212]. A recipient MUST verify that the [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212]. A recipient MUST verify that the
signing entity is indeed authorized to speak for that region. signing entity is indeed authorized to speak for that region. In
Determining who can speak for a particular region is inherently many cases, this will require an out-of-band agreement to be in place
difficult unless there is a small set of authorizing entities that to agree on specific entities to take on this role. Determining who
participants in the mapping architecture can trust. Receiving can speak for a particular region is inherently difficult unless
systems should be particularly suspicious if an existing coverage there is a small set of authorizing entities that participants in the
region is replaced with a new one with a new mapping address. With mapping architecture can trust. Receiving systems should be
this mechanism it is also possible to avoid the distribution of particularly suspicious if an existing coverage region is replaced by
mappings that have been modified by servers forwarding mappings as a new one that contains a different value in the <uri> element. With
part of the synchronization procedure. digitially singed mappings mappings cannot be modified by
intermediate LoST servers.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document defines a protocol for exchange of mapping information This document defines a protocol for exchange of mapping information
between two entities. Hence, the operations described in this between two entities. Hence, the protocol operations described in
document involve mutually-trusting LoST nodes. These nodes MUST this document require authentication of neighboring nodes.
authenticate each other, using mechanisms such as HTTP Digest
[RFC2617] over TLS, HTTP Basic [RFC2617] over TLS [RFC5246] or TLS The LoST Sync client and servers MUST implement TLS and use TLS.
client and server certificates. Manual configuration for the setup Which version(s) ought to be implemented will vary over time, and
of the peering relationships is required and hence the choice of the depend on the widespread deployment and known security
security mechanisms used between the two entities is a deployment vulnerabilities at the time of implementation. At the time of this
specific decision. In any case, TLS MUST be implemented and used. writing, TLS version 1.2 [RFC5246] is the most recent version, but
TLS provides a secure communication channel, an integrity and has very limited actual deployment, and might not be readily
confidentiality protected exchange of data with the help of the TLS available in implementation toolkits. TLS version 1.0 [RFC2246] is
Record Layer, and prevents intermediaries to injecting bogus the most widely deployed version, and will give the broadest
mappings. interoperability.
An additional threat is caused by compromised or misconfigured LoST An additional threat is caused by compromised or misconfigured LoST
servers. A denial of service could be the consequence of an injected servers. A denial of service could be the consequence of an injected
mapping. If the mapping data contains an URL that does not exist mapping. If the mapping data contains an URL that does not exist
then emergency services for the indicated area are not reachable. If then emergency services for the indicated area are not reachable. If
all mapping data contains URLs that point to a single PSAP (rather all mapping data contains URLs that point to a single PSAP (rather
than a large number of PSAPs) then this PSAP is likely to experience than a large number of PSAPs) then this PSAP is likely to experience
overload conditions. If the mapping data contains a URL that points overload conditions. If the mapping data contains a URL that points
to a server controlled by the adversary itself then it might to a server controlled by the adversary itself then it might
impersonate PSAPs. Section 7 discusses this issue and recommends impersonate PSAPs.
individually signed mappings. For unusal changes to the mapping
database approval by an expert may be required before any mappings Section 7 discusses this security threat and mandates signed
are installed. mappings. For unusal changes to the mapping database approval by a
system administrator of the emergency services infrastructure (or a
similar expert) may be required before any mappings are installed.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Content-type registration for 'application/lostsync+xml' 9.1. Content-type registration for 'application/lostsync+xml'
This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type This specification requests the registration of a new MIME type
according to the procedures of RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and guidelines in according to the procedures of RFC 4288 [RFC4288] and guidelines in
RFC 3023 [RFC3023]. RFC 3023 [RFC3023].
Type name: application Type name: application
Subtype name: lostsync+xml Subtype name: lostsync+xml
Required parameters: none Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: charset Optional parameters: charset
Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML. Indicates the character encoding of enclosed XML.
Encoding considerations: Identical to those of "application/xml" as Encoding considerations: Identical to those of "application/xml" as
described in RFC 3023 [RFC3023], Section 3.2. described in [RFC3023], Section 3.2.
Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry LoST Security considerations: This content type is designed to carry LoST
Synchronization protocol payloads described in RFCXXXX. The Synchronization protocol payloads and the security considerations
security considerations section of RFCXXXX is applicable. In section of RFCXXXX is applicable. In addition, as this media type
addition, as this media type uses the "+xml" convention, it shares uses the "+xml" convention, it shares the same security
the same security considerations as described in RFC 3023 considerations as described in [RFC3023], Section 10. [NOTE TO
[RFC3023], Section 10. [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.] specification.]
Interoperability considerations: None Interoperability considerations: None
Published specification: RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please Published specification: RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please
replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.] replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.]
Applications which use this media type: Emergency and Location-based Applications which use this media type: Emergency and Location-based
Systems Systems
Additional information: Additional information:
skipping to change at page 26, line 26 skipping to change at page 26, line 26
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN" <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd"> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head> <head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" <meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/> content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
<title>LoST Synchronization Namespace</title> <title>LoST Synchronization Namespace</title>
</head> </head>
<body> <body>
<h1>Namespace for LoST server synchronization</h1> <h1>Namespace for LoST server synchronization</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1:sync</h2> <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1</h2>
<p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX <p>See <a href="[URL of published RFC]">RFCXXXX
[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR:
Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this
specification.]</a>.</p> specification.]</a>.</p>
</body> </body>
</html> </html>
END END
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
Robins George, Cullen Jennings, Karl Heinz Wolf, Richard Barnes, Robins George, Cullen Jennings, Karl Heinz Wolf, Richard Barnes,
Mayutan Arumaithurai, Alexander Mayrhofer, and Andrew Newton provided Mayutan Arumaithurai, Alexander Mayrhofer, and Andrew Newton provided
helpful input. Jari Urpalainen assisted with the Relax NG schema. helpful input. Jari Urpalainen assisted with the Relax NG schema.
We would also like to thank our PROTO shepherd Roger Marshall for his We would also like to thank our document shepherd Roger Marshall for
help with the document. his help with the document.
We would like to particularly thank Andrew Newton for his timely and We would like to particularly thank Andrew Newton for his timely and
valuable review of the XML-related content. valuable review of the XML-related content.
We would like to thank Robert Sparks for his AD review feedback, We would like to thank Robert Sparks for his AD review feedback,
Bjoern Hoehrmann for his media type review, and Julian Reschke for Bjoern Hoehrmann for his media type review, and Julian Reschke and
his applications area review. Martin Duerst for their applications area reviews.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999. RFC 2617, June 1999.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000. [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
85 lines changed or deleted 98 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/