Geographic Location/Privacy (geopriv) Internet Drafts
| Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines an authorization policy language for controlling access to location information. It extends the Common Policy authorization framework to provide location-specific access control. More specifically, this document defines condition elements specific to location information in order to restrict access based on the current location of the Target. Furthermore, it offers location- specific transformation elements to reduce the granularity of the returned location information. | ||||||||||||||||
| Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document describes procedures for conveying access network ownership and location information based on a civic and geospatial location format 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 addressed in this document. | ||||||||||||||||
| 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 the 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 GML that is mandatory to implement by applications involved in location based routing. | ||||||||||||||||
| 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 Location Configuration Protocol L7 (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 Protocol (LoST) or to convey location within SIP to other entities. | ||||||||||||||||
| HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) | |||||||||||||||||
|
A Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (L7 LCP) is described that is used for retrieving location information from a server within an access network. The protocol 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 session-layer. This document describes the use of Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) as a transport for the protocol. | ||||||||||||||||
| Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism | |||||||||||||||||
|
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. | ||||||||||||||||
| Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS) | |||||||||||||||||
|
A method is described for the discovery of a Location Information Server. The method consists of attempting to use a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) option, followed by a URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR). DHCP options are defined for both IPv4 and IPv6 DHCP. This document also defines a U-NAPTR Application Service for a LIS, with a specific Application Protocol for the HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) protocol. | ||||||||||||||||
| Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document creates a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for the Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) of an endpoint. For example, an endpoint can be a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent (i.e., a phone). This Location-URI can be included in a UA's signaling messages to inform other nodes of that entity's geographic location, once the URI is dereferenced by a Location Recipient. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Geographic Location/Privacy (geopriv)
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:
Additional GEOPRIV Web Page
Last Modified: 2008-06-10
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv
Chair(s):
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Director(s):
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area Advisor:
Technical Advisor(s):
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: geopriv@ietf.orgTo Subscribe: geopriv-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/index.html
Description of Working Group:
As more and more resources become available on the Internet, someapplications need to acquire geographic location information about
certain resources or entities. These applications include navigation,
emergency services, management of equipment in the field, and other
location-based services.
But while the formatting and transfer of such information is in some
sense a straightforward process, the implications of doing it,
especially in regards to privacy and security, are anything but.
The primary task of this working group will be to assess the the
authorization, integrity and privacy requirements that must be met in
order to transfer such information, or authorize the release or
representation of such information through an agent.
In addition, the working group will select an already standardized
format to recommend for use in representing location per se. A key
task will be to enhance this format and protocol approaches using the
enhanced format, to ensure that the security and privacy methods are
available to diverse location-aware applications. Approaches to be
considered will include (among others) data formats incorporating
fields directing the privacy handling of the location information and
possible methods of specifying variable precision of location.
Also to be considered will be: authorization of requestors and
responders; authorization of proxies (for instance, the ability to
authorize a carrier to reveal what timezone one is in, but not what
city. An approach to the taxonomy of requestors, as well as to the
resolution or precision of information given them, will be part of this
deliverable.
The combination of these elements should provide a service capable of
transferring geographic location information in a private and secure
fashion (including the option of denying transfer).
For reasons of both future interoperability and assurance of the
security and privacy goals, it is a goal of the working group to
deliver a specification that has broad applicablity and will become
mandatory to implement for IETF protocols that are location-aware.
Two further deliverables of the WG will be:
o An example API for application-level access to/management
of link-based location information. That is, for instance, the WG
may describe an API for secure, privacy-enabling user/ application
handling of location information specific to a 3G wireless link
technology.
o Development of i-ds that make security and privacy integral to
location information in HTTP and HTML, based on the work in
draft-daviel-html-geo-tag-05.txt and
draft-daviel-http-geo-header-03.txt.
Out of Scope:
This WG won't develop location-determining technology. It will work
from existing technologies and where the technology is undeveloped,
will state that applicability may await others' developments.
This WG won't develop technology to support any particular regulatory
requirement [e.g. E.911] but will provide a framework that might be
used for private/secure definition of such technologies by other
bodies.
Coordination:
The WG will coordinate with other WGs developing general privacy and
location-aware functions, e.g. the SIP WG, so that the WG deliverables
can be used by them. Other coordination should include the NymIP
research community, WC3, and the Location Information Forum.
Goals and Milestones:
| Done | Discuss initial geopriv scenarios and application requirements i-d's | |
| Done | Discuss initial geographic location privacy and security requirements i-d. | |
| Done | Initial i-d on geographic information protocol design, including privacy and security techniques. | |
| Done | Review charter and initial i-ds with AD, and have IESG consider rechartering if necessary. | |
| Done | Submit geopriv scenarios and application requirements to IESG for publicaiton as Informational RFCs | |
| Done | Submit security/privacy requirements I-D to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. | |
| Done | Submit PIDF-LO basic geopriv object draft as a PS | |
| Done | Initial Common Rules base object draft | |
| Done | Initial Common Ruels GEOPRIV object draft | |
| Done | Submit DHCP Civil draft as a PS | |
| Nov 2007 | Resubmit Geolocation Policy to the IESG for publication as PS | |
| Nov 2007 | Resubmit Conveying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter to the IESG for publication as PS | |
| Nov 2007 | Submit Additional Civic PIDF-LO types (updating 4119) to the IESG for publication as PS | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit Layer 7 Location Conveyance Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements to the IESG for publication as Informational | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit a Document Format for Filtering and Reporting PIDF-LO Location Notifications to the IESG for publication as PS | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit Requirements for Location by Reference Protocols to the IESG for publication as Informational | |
| Jan 2008 | Submit PIDF-LO Usage Clarifications and Recommendations (updating 4119) to the IESG for publication as PS | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit minimal HTTP based protocol satisfying baseline requirements specified in the Layer 7 Location Conveyance Protocol Problem Statement and Requirements to the IESG for publication as PS | |
| Feb 2008 | Submit a LIS Discovery Mechanism to the IESG for publication as a PS | |
| Jul 2008 | Submit Recommendations for Retransmission in SIP Location Conveyance to the IESG for publication as Informational |
Internet-Drafts:
Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information (56621 bytes)Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter (124024 bytes)
GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and Recommendations (56575 bytes)
GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and Requirements (40108 bytes)
HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) (95495 bytes)
Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism (32763 bytes)
Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS) (47258 bytes)
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) (27378 bytes)
Request For Comments:
Geopriv requirements (RFC 3693) (68881 bytes)Threat Analysis of the geopriv Protocol (RFC 3694) (44364 bytes)
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information (RFC 3825) (31715 bytes)
A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects (RFC 4079) (16718 bytes)
A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format (RFC 4119) (53522 bytes) updated by RFC 5139
Location Types Registry (RFC 4589) (24037 bytes)
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information (RFC 4676) (45208 bytes) obsoleted by RFC 4776
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information (RFC 4776) (45495 bytes) obsoletes RFC 4676
Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences (RFC 4745) (63602 bytes)
Revised Civic Location Format for Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) (RFC 5139) (27470 bytes) updates RFC 4119
IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.
Return to working group directory. 
