GeoPriv                                                 R. Marshall, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                       TCS
Intended status: Informational                         November 3, 28, 2008
Expires: May 7, June 1, 2009

           Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, June 1, 2009.


   This document defines terminology and provides requirements relating
   to Location-by-Reference approach using a location URI to handle
   location information within signaling and other Internet messaging.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Overview of Location-by-Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  High-Level Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Requirements for a  Location Configuration Protocol  . . . 10
     4.2.  Requirements for a  Location Dereference Protocol  . . . . 12
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix A.  Change log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.  Introduction

   Since all location-based services rely on ready access to location
   information, this can accomplished through some direct means, or
   alternatively, through some indirect means as a pointer to location
   information.  The direct vs. indirect approach we characterize as
   either Location-by-Value (LbyV), or Location-by-Reference (LbyR).

   While it is the case that within SIP, location can be handled in a
   direct manner, (i.e., passing the actual location information around
   in the form of a PIDF-LO*), there are additional location
   requirements which apply to certain applications and/or location
   architectures that are only satisfied by specifying an indirect
   location mechanism.  This document puts forth a set of requirements
   for such an indirect location approach, namely, the LbyR location

   As justification for a LbyR model, consider the following.  In some
   mobile networks it is not efficient for the end host to periodically
   query the LIS for up-to-date location information.  This is
   especially the case when power is a constraint or when a location
   update is not immediately needed.  Furthermore, the end host might
   want to delegate the task of retrieving and publishing location
   information to a third party, such as to a presence server.
   Additionally, in some deployments, the network operator may not want
   to make location information widely available.  These kinds of
   location scenarios, and more, such as whether a Target is mobile and
   whether a mobile device needs to be located on demand or according to
   some pre-determined interval, together form the basis of motivation
   for the LbyR concept.

   The concept of an LbyR mechanism is simple.  It is made up of a
   pointer which makes reference to the actual location information by
   some combination of key value and fully qualified domain name.  This
   combination of data elements, in the form of a URI, is referred to
   specifically as a "location URI".

   The LbyR mechanism itself works according to an information
   lifecycle.  Within the LbyR mechanism, location URIs are temporary
   identifiers, each undergoing the following uses: Creation;
   Distribution; Conveyance; Dereference; and Termination.  The use of a
   location URI according to these various states is generally applied
   in one of the following ways:

   1.  Creation of a location URI, within a location server, based on
   some request for its creation.

   2.  Distribution of a location URI, via a Location Configuration
   Protocol, between a target and a location server**.

   3.  Conveyance, applied to LbyR, in SIP, is the transporting of the
   location URI, in this case, between any successive signaling

   4.  Dereference of a location URI, a request/response between a
   client having a location URI and a location server holding the
   location  information that the location URI references.

   5.  Termination of a location URI, either due to expiration or
   cancellation within a location server, and which is based on a target
   cancellation  request or some other action, such as timer

   Location determination, different than location configuration or
   dereferencing, often includes topics related to manual provisioning
   processes, automated location calculations based on a variety of
   measurement techniques, and/or location transformations, (e.g., geo-
   coding), and is beyond the scope of this document.

   *The standard mechanism for LbyV has been defined around the use of
   the PIDF-LO (Presence Information Document Format - Location Object
   [RFC4119]]), and is explicitly out of scope in this document.

   **This document make no differentiation between a LS, per RFC3693,
   and a LIS [ref. draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps], but may refer to
   either of them as a location server interchangeably.

   ***Location Conveyance for either LbyR or LbyV, within SIP signaling
   is considered out of scope for this document (see
   [I-D.ietf-sip-location-conveyance] for an explanation of location
   conveyance for either LbyR or LbyV scenarios.)

   Except for location conveyance, the above stages in the LbyR
   lifecycle fall into one of two general categories of protocols,
   either a Location Configuration Protocol or a Location Dereference
   Protocol.  The stages of LbyR Creation, Distribution, and
   Termination, are each found within the set of Location Configuration
   Protocols (LCP).  The Dereference stage belongs solely to the set of
   Location Dereference Protocols.

   The issues around location configuration protocols have been
   documented in a location configuration protocol problem statement and
   requirements document [I-D.ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps].  There are
   currently several examples of a location configuration protocols
   currently proposed, including, DHCP, LLDP-MED, and HELD
   [I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery]) protocols.

   For dereferencing of a location URI, depending on the type of
   reference used, such as a HTTP/HTTPS, or SIP Presence URI, different
   operations can be performed.  While an HTTP/HTTPS URI can be resolved
   to location information, a SIP Presence URI provides further benefits
   from the SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY concept that can additionally be combined
   with location filters [I-D.ietf-geopriv-loc-filters].

   The structure of this document includes terminology, Section 2,
   followed by a discussion of the basic elements that surround how a
   location URI is used.  These elements, or actors, are discussed in an
   overview section, Section 3, accompanied by a graph and associated
   processing steps.

   Requirements are outlined accordingly, separated as location
   configuration requirements, Section 4.1, and location dereference
   requirements, Section 4.2.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   This document reuses the terminology of [RFC3693], such as Location
   Server (LS), Location Recipient (LR), Rule Maker (RM), Target,
   Location Generator (LG), Location Object (LO), and Using Protocol:

   Location-by-Value (LbyV):  The mechanism of representing location
      either in configuration or conveyance protocols, (i.e., the actual
      included location value).

   Location-by-Reference (LbyR):  The mechanism of representing location
      by means of a location URI for use in either a location
      configuration, conveyance, or dereferencing protocol, and which
      refers to a fully specified location.

   Location Configuration Protocol:  A protocol which is used by a
      client to acquire either location or a location URI from a
      location configuration server, based on information unique to the

   Location Dereference Protocol:  A protocol which is used by a client
      to query a location dereference server, based on location URI
      input and which returns location information.

   Location URI:  An identifier which serves as a pointer to a location
      record on a remote host (e.g., LIS).  Used within an Location-by-
      Reference mechanism, a location URI is provided by a location
      configuration server, and is used as input by a dereference
      protocol to retrieve location from a dereference server.

3.  Overview of Location-by-Reference

   This section describes the entities and interactions involved in the
   LbyR model.

                    +-----------+  Geopriv      +-----------+
                    |           |  Location     | Location  |
                    |    LIS    +---------------+ Recipient |
                    |           |  Dereference  |           |
                    +-+---+-----+  Protocol (3) +----+------+
                     *    |                        --
         Rulemaker  *     | Geopriv              --
         Policy    *      | Location           --
         Exchange *       | Configuration    --
            (1b) *        | Protocol       --
                *         | (1a)         --      Geopriv
               *          |            --        Using Protocol
     + - - - -*- - - - - -|- - - -+  --          (e.g., SIP)
     |+------+----+ +-----+-----+ |--            (2)
      | Rulemaker | | Target /  |--
     ||  / owner  | | End Host  + |
      |           | |           |
     |+-----------+ +-----------+ |

     |       User of Target       |
     + - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+

          Figure 1: Location Reference Entities and Interactions

   Figure 1 shows the assumed communication model for both a layer 7
   location configuration protocol and a location dereference protocol.

   (1a).  Target requests reference from server; and receives back, a
   location URI in server response

   (1b).  Rulemaker policy is consulted (interface out of scope)

   (2).  Target conveys reference to recipient (out of scope)

   (3).  Recipient dereferences location URI, by a choice of methods,
   including a request/response (e.g., HTTP) or publish/subscription

   Note A. There is no requirement for using the same protocol in (1a)
   and (3).

   Note B. Figure 1 includes the interaction between the owner of the
   Target and the LIS to establish Rulemaker policies.  This is
   communications path (1b).  This interaction needs to be done before
   the LIS will authorize anything other than default policies to a
   dereference request for location of the Target.

   Note C. The Target may take on the role of the Location Recipient
   whereby it would dereference the location URI to obtain its own
   location information.

   An example scenario of how this might work, is where the Target
   obtains a location URI in the form of a subscription URI (e.g., a SIP
   URI) via HELD (a Geopriv layer 7 location configuration protocol).
   In this case, the Target is the same as the Recipient, therefore the
   Target can subscribe to the URI in order to be notified of its
   current location based on subscription parameters.  In the example,
   parameters are set up for a specific Target/Recipient along with an
   expressed geospatial boundary, so that the Target/Recipient receives
   an updated location notification once the boundary is crossed (see

   Location URIs may have an expiry associated with them, primarily for
   security considerations, and generally so that the LIS is able to
   keep track of the location URIs that have been handed out, to know
   whether a location URI is still valid once the LIS receives it in a
   request, and in order for a recipient of such a URI from being able
   to (in some cases) permanently track a host.  Expiration of a
   location URI limits the time that accidental leaking of a location
   URI introduces.  Other justifications for expiration of location URIs
   include the ability for a LIS to do garbage collection.

   Because a location URI is a pointer to the Target's location, it is
   important that it be constructed in such a way that it does not
   unintentionally reveal any usable information about the Target it
   represents.  For example, it is important to prevent adversaries from
   obtaining any information that may be revealed about a Target by
   direct examination of the location URI itself, (e.g., names,
   identifiers, etc.), some determinable pattern or syntax (e.g.,
   sequence of numbers), or guessable codes (e.g., weak encryption).
   Therefore, each location URI must be constructed with security
   safeguards in mind.

   How a location URI is will ultimately be used within the dereference
   step is an important consideration at the time that the location URI
   is requested via a location configuration protocol.  Since
   dereferencing of location URIs could be done according to one of two
   authorization models, either an "access control authorization model"
   or a "possession authorization model" (see definitions, below), it is
   important that location configuration protocols indicate the type of
   a location URI that is being requested, (and also which type is

   1. Access control authorization model:  Access to the location URI is
      limited by policy.  In this case, the Rule Maker (owner/Target) is
      able to provide authorization policies to the LIS during this
      stage, or through some other parallel mechanism (e.g., interface
      1b., Figure 1.).  Policies are attached to a location URI through
      an (undisclosed) mechanism.

   2. Possession authorization model:  The possession authorization
      model is described as having no authentication and/or
      authorization requirement aside from only possessing the location
      URI itself.  In this case, possession implies authorization.
      Access to the location URI is limited by distribution only.
      Whoever possesses the location URI has the ability to dereference
      it.  Possession authorization models may be used within specified
      domains only, or might be used across wide open public networks.

   In either of the above cases, a location URI needs to be constructed
   is such a way as to make it difficult to guess.  The form of the URI
   is constrained by the degree of randomness and uniqueness applied to
   it.  It is important to protect the actual location information from
   an intermediate node (despite the fact that in the possession model
   there would be nothing to prevent an interceptor from seeking to
   dereference the location URI).  Obfuscating the location URI
   safeguards against the undetected stripping off of what would
   otherwise be evident location information, since it forces a
   dereference operation by the location dereference server, an
   important step for the purpose of providing statistics, audit trails,
   and general logging for many different kinds of location based

4.  High-Level Requirements

   This document outlines the requirements for an Location by Reference
   mechanism which can be used by a number of underlying protocols.
   Requirements here address two general types of such protocols, a
   general location configuration protocol, and a general location
   dereferencing protocol.  Each of these two general protocols has
   multiple specific protocol implementations.  Location configuration
   protocols include, HELD, DHCP, and LLDP-MED, whereas current location
   dereferencing protocols include HELD Deref, HTTP GET, and SIP
   SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY.  Because each of these specific protocol
   implementations has its own unique client and server interactions,
   the requirements here are not intended to state what a client or
   server is expected to do, but rather which requirements must be met
   separately by any location configuration protocol or location
   dereference protocol, for the purposes of using a location URI.

   The requirements are broken into two sections.

4.1.  Requirements for a  Location Configuration Protocol

   Below, we summarize high-level design requirements needed for a
   location-by-reference mechanism as used within the location
   configuration protocol.

   C1. Location URI support:  The configuration protocol MUST support a
      location reference in URI form.

      Motivation: It is helpful to have a consistent form of key for the
      LbyR mechanism.

   C2. Location URI expiration:  When a location URI has a limited
      validity interval, its lifetime MUST be indicated.

      Motivation: A location URI may not intend to represent a location
      forever, and the identifier eventually may need to be recycled, or
      may be subject to a specific window of validity, after which the
      location reference fails to yield a location, or the location is
      determined to be kept confidential.

   C3. Location URI cancellation:  The location configuration protocol
      MUST support the ability to request a cancellation of a specific
      location URI.

      Motivation: If the client determines that in its best interest to
      destroy the ability for a location URI to effectively be used to
      dereference a location, then there should be a way to nullify the
      location URI.

   C4. Location Information Masking:  The location URI form MUST,
      through randomization and uniqueness, ensure that any location
      specific information embedded within the location URI itself is
      kept obscure during location configuration.

      Motivation: It is important to keep any location information
      masked from a casual observing node.

   C5. User Identity Protection:  The location URI MUST NOT contain any
      user identifying information that identifies the user, device or
      address of record, (e.g., which includes phone extensions, badge
      numbers, first or last names, etc.), within the URI form.

      Motivation: It is important to protect caller identity or contact
      address from being included in the form of the location URI itself
      when it is generated.

   C6. Reuse indicator:  There SHOULD be a way to allow a client to
      control whether a location URI can be resolved once only, or
      multiple times.

      Motivation: The client requesting a location URI may request a
      location URI which has a 'one-time-use' only characteristic, as
      opposed to a location URI having multiple reuse capability.

   C7. Validity Interval Indication:  A location configuration protocol
      MUST provide an indication of the location URI validity interval
      (i.e., expiry time) when present.

      Motivation: It is important to be able to determine how long a
      location URI is to remain useful for, and when it must be

   C8. Location only:  The location URI MUST NOT point to any
      information about the Target other than it's location.

      Motivation: A user should have the option to control how much
      information is revealed about them.  This provides that control by
      not forcing the inclusion of other information with location,
      (e.g., to not include any identification information in the
      location URI.)

   C9. Location URI Not guessable:  Where location URIs are used
      publicly, any location URI MUST be constructed using properties of
      uniqueness and cryptographically random sequences so that it is
      not guessable.  (Note that the number of bits depends to some
      extent on the number of active location URIs that might exist at
      the one time; 128-bit is most likely enough for the near term.)
      Motivation: Location URIs need to guard against any observing node
      or individual stripping off meaningful information about the

   C10.  Location URI Optional:  In the case of user-provided
      authorization policies, where anonymous or non-guessable location
      URIs are not warranted, the location configuration protocol MAY
      support optional location URI forms.

      Motivation: Users don't always have such strict privacy
      requirements, but may opt to specify their own location URI, or
      components thereof.

   C11.  Location URI Authorization Model:  The location configuration
      protocol SHOULD indicate whether the requested location URI
      conforms to the access control authorization model or the
      possession authorization model.

      Motivation: Downstream dereference clients and servers need to
      know whether a location URI provided by the location configuration
      protocol conforms to an access control authorization model or a
      possession authorization model.

   C12.  Location URI Lifetime:  A location URI SHOULD have an
      associated expiration lifetime (i.e., validity interval), and MUST
      have an validity interval if used with the possession
      authorization model.

      Motivation: If a location URI is unintentionally leaked, then the
      amount of time that the reference can be potentially used by an
      unknown attacker (or, casual observer) needs to be limited.

4.2.  Requirements for a  Location Dereference Protocol

   Below, we summarize high-level design requirements needed for a
   location-by-reference mechanism as used within the location
   dereference protocol.

   D1. Location URI support:  The location dereference protocol MUST
      support a location reference in URI form.

      Motivation: It is required that there be consistency of use
      between location URI formats used in an configuration protocol and
      those used by a dereference protocol.

   D2. Validity Interval Indication:  A location dereference protocol
      MUST provide an indication of the location URI validity interval
      (i.e., expiry time) when present.

      Motivation: It is important to be able to determine how long a
      location URI is to remain useful for, and what time it will no
      longer be usable.

   D3. Authentication:  The location dereference protocol MUST include
      mechanisms to authenticate both the client and the server.

      Motivation: Although the implementations must support
      authentication of both parties, any given transaction has the
      option not to authenticate one or both parties.

   D4.  Dereferenced Location Form:  The value returned by the
      dereference protocol MUST contain a well-formed PIDF-LO document.

      Motivation: This is in order to ensure that adequate privacy rules
      can be adhered to, since the PIDF-LO format comprises the
      necessary structures to maintain location privacy.

   D5. Location URI Repeated Use:  The location dereference protocol
      MUST support the ability for the same location URI to be resolved
      more than once, based on dereference server configuration.

      Motivation: Through dereference server configuration, for example,
      it may be useful to not only allow more than one dereference
      request, but, in some cases, to also limit the number of
      dereferencing attempts by a client.

   D6. Validity Interval Indication:  A dereference protocol MUST
      provide an indication of the location URI validity interval (i.e.,
      expiry time) when present.

      Motivation: It is important to be able to determine how long a
      location URI is to remain useful for, and when it must be

   D7. Location URI anonymized:  Any location URI whose dereference will
      not be subject to authentication and access control MUST be

      Motivation: The dereference protocol must define an anonymized
      format for location URIs.  This format must identify the desired
      location information via a random token with at least 128 bits of
      entropy (rather than some kind of explicit identifier, such as an
      IP address).

   D8. Location Information Masking:  The location URI form MUST,
      through randomization and uniqueness, ensure that any location
      specific information embedded within the location URI itself is
      kept obscure during location URI dereferencing.

      Motivation: It is important to keep any location information
      masked from a casual observing node, requiring instead a discrete
      dereference operation in order to return location information.

   D9. Location Privacy:  The location dereference protocol MUST support
      the application of privacy rules to the dissemination of a
      requested location object.

      Motivation: The dereference server must obey all provisioned
      privacy rules that apply to a requested location object.

   D10.  Location Confidentiality:  The dereference protocol MUST
      support encryption of messages sent between the location
      dereference client and the location dereference server, and MAY
      alternatively provide messaging unencrypted.

      Motivation: Environmental and local configuration policy will
      guide the requirement for encryption for certain transactions.  In
      some cases, encryption may be the rule, in others, it may be
      acceptable to send and receive messages without encryption.

   D11.  Location URI Authorization Model:  The location dereference
      protocol SHOULD indicate whether the requested location URI
      conforms to the access control authorization model or the
      possession authorization model.

      Motivation: Downstream dereference clients need to know whether a
      location URI provided by the location configuration protocol
      conforms to an access control authorization model or a possession
      authorization model in order to save time processing dereference

5.  Security Considerations

   A location URI, regardless of its construction, if public, by itself,
   implies no safeguard against anyone being able to dereference and get
   the location.  The method of constructing the location URI form to
   include randomization along with encryption does help prevent some
   potential pattern guessing.  In the case of one time use location
   URIs, (referred to as a pawn ticket), the argument can be made that
   possession implies permission, and location URIs that are public are
   protected only by privacy rules enforced at the dereference server.

   Any location URI, by necessity, indicates the server (name) that
   hosts the location information.  Knowledge of the server in some
   specific domain could therefore reveal something about the location
   of the Target.  This kind of threat may be mitigated somewhat by
   introducing another layer of indirection: namely the use of a
   (remote) presence server.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require actions by the IANA.

7.  Acknowledgements

   I would like to thank the present IETF GEOPRIV working group chair chairs,
   Robert Sparks and Richard Barnes for their continued support in
   progressing this document along, as well, I wish to thank past
   chairs, Andy Newton, Allison Mankin and Randall Gellens, for creating
   the design team which initiated this requirements work.  I'd also
   like to thank those original design team participants for their
   inputs, comments, and insightful reviews.  The design team included
   the following folks: Richard Barnes; Martin Dawson; Keith Drage;
   Randall Gellens; Ted Hardie; Cullen Jennings; Marc Linsner; Rohan
   Mahy; Allison Mankin; Roger Marshall; Andrew Newton; Jon Peterson;
   James M. Polk; Brian Rosen; John Schnizlein; Henning Schulzrinne;
   Barbara Stark; Hannes Tschofenig; Martin Thomson; and James

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2.  Informative References

              Barnes, M., Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and B. Stark,
              "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
              draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-10 (work in
              progress), October 2008.

              Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
              Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and
              Requirements", draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-08 (work in
              progress), June 2008.

              Mahy, R. and B. Rosen, "A Document Format for Filtering
              and Reporting Location Notications in the  Presence
              Information Document Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)",
              draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-03 (work in progress),
              November 2008.

              Schulzrinne, H., Tschofenig, H., Morris, J., Cuellar, J.,
              and J. Polk, "Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for
              Expressing Privacy Preferences for  Location Information",
              draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-17 (work in progress),
              June 2008.

              Polk, J. and B. Rosen, "Location Conveyance for the
              Session Initiation Protocol",
              draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-12 (work in progress),
              November 2008.

   [RFC3693]  Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and
              J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.

   [RFC4119]  Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
              Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.

Appendix A.  Change log

   Changes to this draft in comparison to the previous version (-05 vs.

   1.  Fixed minor spelilng errors.

   Changes to this draft in comparison to the previous version (-04 vs.

   1.  Changed wording of section 1 "Introduction", (Thompson (Thomson ~ 7/09/08
   list comments).

   1.  Relocated text in section 3 "Overview of Location-by-Reference"
   to section 1 (Intro), (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   2.  (Sect. 3, con't) Fixed Figure 1.  Label, based on (Thompson (Thomson

   3.  Fixed minor spelling errors, incl.  Note B., Note C., etc., based
   on (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   4.  Added some qualifying text (security) around possession model,
   based on (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   5.  Replaced "use type" labels with "authorization models", "access
   authorization model", and "possession authorization model", (Thompson (Thomson

   6.  Changed the entity role of applying security from LIS (Server-
   side authentication), to the Rule-Maker (owner/Target) providing
   policies to the LIS, (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   7.  Changed requirement C3 to a MUST, (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   8.  Added new requirement, C12, "C12.  Location URI Lifetime:" as a
   SHOULD for all, and MUST for possession auth model, (Thompson (Thomson

   9.  Changed name of requirement C8 to "Location Only", (Thompson (Thomson

   10.  Reworded C7 and D6 to be less implementation specific, (Thompson (Thomson

   11.  Changed requirements C11, D11 to SHOULD, (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   12.  (Section 5:) Removed lead in sentence for readibility, (Thompson (Thomson

   13.  Remove "pawn ticket" reference - replaced with "possession
   authorization model", (Thompson (Thomson comments).

   14.  Added new paragraph to the security section (Thompson, (Thomson, 7/09/08

   15.  Corrected other minor spelling and wording errors and
   deficiencies (refer to diff 04/03) (-Editor).

   Changes to this draft in comparison to the previous version (-03 vs.

   1.  Changed wording of section 3 "Overview of Location-by-Reference"
   (Polk, Thomson, Winterbottom ~ 4/1/08 list comments).

   2.  Added new requirement C4.  "Location Information Masking:", based
   on (Thomson ~4/1/08 list comment).

   3.  Added new requirement C11.  "Location URI Use Type:", based on
   (~4/1/08 list comments).

   4.  Added new requirement D11.  "Location URI Use Type:", for deref.
   based on (~4/1/08 list comments).

   5.  Replaced requirement D8.  "Location URI Non-Anonymized" with
   "Location Information Masking:".

   Changes to this draft in comparison to the previous version (-02 vs.

   1.  Reworded Introduction (Barnes 12/6 list comments).

   2.  Changed name of "Basic Actors" section to "Overview of Location
   by Reference" (Barnes).

   3.  Keeping the LCP term away (for now) since it is used as Link
   Control Protocol elsewhere (IETF).

   4.  Changed formatting of Terminology section (Barnes).

   5.  Requirement C2. changed to indicate that if the URI has a
   lifetime, it has to have an expiry (Barnes)

   6.  C7.  Changed title and wording based on suggested text and dhcp-
   uri-option example (Polk).

   7.  The new C2 req. describing valid-for, was also added into the
   deref section, as D6

   8.  Changed C4 based on much list discussion - replaced by 3 new

   9.  Reworded C5 based on the follow-on C4 thread/discussion on list

   10.  Changed wording of D3 based on suggestion (Barnes).

   11.  Reworded D4 per suggestion (Barnes).

   12.  Changed D5 based on comment (Barnes), and additional title and
   text changes for clarity.

   13.  Added D9 and D10 per Richard Barnes suggestions - something
   needed in addition to his own security doc.

   14.  Deleted reference to individual Barnes-loc-sec draft per wg list
   suggestion (Barnes), but need more text for this draft's security

Author's Address

   Roger Marshall (editor)
   TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
   2401 Elliott Avenue
   2nd Floor
   Seattle, WA  98121

   Phone: +1 206 792 2424

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at