path: root/doc/rfc/rfc4119.txt

Network Working Group                                        J. Peterson
Request for Comments: 4119                                       NeuStar
Category: Standards Track                                  December 2005


            A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document describes an object format for carrying geographical
   information on the Internet.  This location object extends the
   Presence Information Data Format (PIDF), which was designed for
   communicating privacy-sensitive presence information and which has
   similar properties.

























Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
   2. Location Object Format ..........................................4
      2.1. Baseline PIDF Usage ........................................4
      2.2. Extensions to PIDF for Location and Usage Rules ............5
           2.2.1. 'location-info' Element .............................5
           2.2.2. 'usage-rules' Element ...............................7
           2.2.3. 'method' Element ....................................9
           2.2.4. 'provided-by' Element ...............................9
           2.2.5. Schema Definitions .................................10
      2.3. Example Location Objects ..................................14
   3. Carrying PIDF in a Using Protocol ..............................15
   4. Securing PIDF ..................................................15
   5. Security Considerations ........................................17
   6. IANA Considerations ............................................17
      6.1. 'method' Tokens ...........................................17
      6.2. 'provided-by' Elements ....................................18
      6.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
           urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10 .....................18
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................19
   A. Appendix: NENA Provided-by Schema ..............................20
      A.1. dataProvider XML Schema ...................................21
   Normative References ..............................................22
   Informative References ............................................22

1.  Introduction

   Geographical location information describes a physical position in
   the world that may correspond to the past, present, or future
   location of a person, event, or device.  Numerous applications used
   in the Internet today benefit from sharing location information
   (including mapping/navigation applications, 'friend finders' on cell
   phones, and so on).  However, such applications may disclose the
   whereabouts of a person in a manner contrary to the user's
   preferences.  Privacy lapses may result from poor protocol security
   (which permits eavesdroppers to capture location information),
   inability to articulate or accommodate user preferences, or similar
   defects common in existing systems.  The privacy concerns surrounding
   the unwanted disclosure of a person's physical location are among the
   more serious issues that confront users on the Internet.

   Consequently, a need has been identified to convey geographical
   location information within an object that includes a user's privacy
   and disclosure preferences and which is protected by strong
   cryptographic security.  Previous work [13] has observed that this
   problem bears some resemblance to the general problem of



Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   communicating and securing presence information on the Internet.
   Presence (defined in [12]) provides a real-time communications
   disposition for a user, and thus has similar requirements for
   selective distribution and security.

   Therefore, this document extends the XML-based Presence Information
   Data Format (PIDF [2]) to allow the encapsulation of location
   information within a presence document.

   This document does not invent any format for location information
   itself.  Numerous existing formats based on civic location,
   geographic coordinates, and the like, have been developed in other
   standards fora.  Instead, this document defines an object that is
   suitable both for identifying and encapsulating preexisting location
   information formats, and for providing adequate security and policy
   controls to regulate the distribution of location information over
   the Internet.

   The location object described in this document can be used
   independently of any 'using protocol', as the term is defined in the
   GEOPRIV requirements [10].  It is considered an advantage of this
   proposal that existing presence protocols (such as [14]) would
   natively accommodate the location object format defined in this
   document, and be capable of composing location information with other
   presence information, because this location object is an extension of
   PIDF.  However, the usage of this location object format is not
   limited to presence-using protocols-- any protocol that can carry XML
   or MIME types can carry PIDF.

   Some of the requirements in [10] and [11] concern data collection and
   usage policies associated with location objects.  This document
   provides only the minimum markup necessary for a user to express the
   necessary privacy preferences as specified by the GEOPRIV
   requirements (the three basic elements in [11]).  However, this
   document does not demonstrate how a full XML-based ruleset,
   accommodating the needs of Location Servers, could be embedded in
   PIDF.  It is assumed that other protocols (such as HTTP) will be used
   to move rules between Rule Holders and Location Servers, and that
   full rulesets will be defined in a separate document.

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [1].






Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


2.  Location Object Format

2.1.  Baseline PIDF Usage

   The GEOPRIV requirements [10] (or REQ for short) specify the need for
   a name for the person, place or thing that location information
   describes (REQ 2.1).  PIDF has such an identifier already:  every
   PIDF document has an "entity" attribute of the 'presence' element
   that signifies the URI of the entity whose presence the document
   describes.  Consequently, if location information is contained in a
   PIDF document, the URI in the "entity" attribute of the 'presence'
   element indicates the target of that location information (the
   'presentity').  The URI in the "entity" attribute generally uses the
   "pres" URI scheme defined in [3].  Such URIs can serve as unlinkable
   pseudonyms (per REQ 12).

   PIDF optionally contains a 'contact' element that provides a URI
   where the presentity can be reached by some means of communication.
   Usually, the URI scheme in the value of the 'contact' element gives
   some sense of how the presentity can be reached; if it uses the SIP
   URI scheme, for example, SIP can be used, and so on.  Location
   information can be provided without any associated means of
   communication.  Thus, the 'contact' element may or may not be
   present, as desired by the creator of the PIDF document.

   PIDF optionally contains a 'timestamp' element that designates the
   time at which the PIDF document was created.  This element
   corresponds to REQ 2.7a.

   PIDF contains a 'status' element, which is mandatory.  'status'
   contains an optional child element, 'basic', that describes the
   presentity's communications disposition (in very broad terms: either
   OPEN or CLOSED).  For the purposes of this document, it is not
   necessary for 'basic' status to be included.  If, however,
   communications disposition is included in a PIDF document above and
   beyond geolocation, then 'basic' status may appear in a PIDF document
   that uses these extensions.

   PIDF also contains a 'tuple' umbrella element, which holds an "id"
   element used to uniquely identify a segment of presence information
   so that changes to this information can be tracked over time (as
   multiple notifications of presence are received).  'timestamp',
   'status', and 'contact' are composed under 'tuple'.








Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


2.2.  Extensions to PIDF for Location and Usage Rules

   This XML Schema extends the 'status' element of PIDF with a complex
   element called 'geopriv'.  There are two major subelements that are
   encapsulated within geopriv: one for location information, and one
   for usage rules.  Both of these subelements are mandatory, and are
   described in subsequent sections.  By composing these two subelements
   under 'geopriv', the usage rules are clearly and explicitly
   associated with the location information.

   For extensibility (see REQ 1.4), the schema allows any other
   subelements to appear under the 'geopriv' element.  Two other
   optional subelements are included in this document: one that
   indicates the method by which geographical location was determined,
   and one that allows an explicit designation of the entity that
   provided the information.

2.2.1.  'location-info' Element

   Each 'geopriv' element MUST contain one 'location-info' element.  A
   'location-info' element consists of one or more chunks of location
   information (per REQ 2.5).  The format of the location information
   (REQ 2.6) is identified by the imported XML Schema, which describes
   the namespace in question.  All PIDF documents that contain a
   'geopriv' element MUST contain one or more import directives
   indicating the XML Schema(s) that are used for geographic location
   formats.

   In order to ensure interoperability of GEOPRIV implementations, it is
   necessary to select a baseline location format that all compliant
   implementations support (see REQ 3.1).  Because it satisfies REQ
   2.5.1, this document works from the assumption that Geography Markup
   Language (GML) 3.0 [15] shall be this mandatory format (a MUST
   implement for all PIDF implementations supporting the 'geopriv'
   element).

   GML is an extraordinarily thorough and versatile system for modeling
   all manner of geographic object types, topologies, metadata,
   coordinate reference systems, and units of measurement.  The simplest
   package for GML supporting location

   information is the 'feature.xsd' schema.  Although 'feature.xsd' can
   express complicated geographical concepts, it requires very little
   markup to provide basic coordinate points for the most commonly used
   cases.  Various format descriptions (including latitude/longitude
   based location information) are supported by Feature (see section
   7.4.1.4 of [15] for examples), which resides here:




Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


      urn:opengis:specification:gml:schema-xsd:feature:v3.0

   Note that by importing the Feature schema, necessary GML baseline
   schemas are transitively imported.

   Complex features (such as modeling topologies and polygons,
   directions and vectors, temporal indications of the time for which a
   particular location is valid for a target) are also available in GML,
   but require importing additional schemas.  For the purposes of
   baseline interoperability as defined by this document, only support
   for the 'feature.xsd' GML schema is REQUIRED.

   Implementations MAY support the civic location format (civicLoc)
   defined in Section 2.2.5.  civicLoc provides the following elements:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Label                | Description          | Example             |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | country              | The country is       | US                  |
   |                      | identified by the    |                     |
   |                      | two-letter ISO 3166  |                     |
   |                      | code.                |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | A1                   | national             | New York            |
   |                      | subdivisions (state, |                     |
   |                      | region, province,    |                     |
   |                      | prefecture)          |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | A2                   | county, parish, gun  | King's County       |
   |                      | (JP), district (IN)  |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | A3                   | city, township, shi  | New York            |
   |                      | (JP)                 |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | A4                   | city division,       | Manhattan           |
   |                      | borough, city        |                     |
   |                      | district, ward, chou |                     |
   |                      | (JP)                 |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | A5                   | neighborhood, block  | Morningside Heights |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | A6                   | street               | Broadway            |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | PRD                  | Leading street       | N, W                |
   |                      | direction            |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | POD                  | Trailing street      | SW                  |
   |                      | suffix               |                     |



Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   |                      |                      |                     |
   | STS                  | Street suffix        | Avenue, Platz,      |
   |                      |                      | Street              |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | HNO                  | House number,        | 123                 |
   |                      | numeric part only.   |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | HNS                  | House number suffix  | A, 1/2              |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | LMK                  | Landmark or vanity   | Low Library         |
   |                      | address              |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | LOC                  | Additional location  | Room 543            |
   |                      | information          |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | FLR                  | Floor                | 5                   |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | NAM                  | Name (residence,     | Joe's Barbershop    |
   |                      | business or office   |                     |
   |                      | occupant)            |                     |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | PC                   | Postal code          | 10027-0401          |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

   Either the GML 3.0 geographical information format element, or the
   location format element ('civicLoc') defined in this document, MAY
   appear in a 'location-info' element.  Both MAY also be used in the
   same 'location-info' element.  In summary, the feature.xsd schema of
   GML 3.0 MUST be supported by implementations compliant with this
   specification, and the civicLoc format MAY be supported by
   implementations compliant with this specification.

2.2.2.  'usage-rules' Element

   At the time this document was written, the policy requirements for
   GEOPRIV objects were not definitively completed.  However, the
   'usage-rules' element exists to satisfy REQ 2.8 and the requirements
   of the GEOPRIV policy requirements [11] document.  Each 'geopriv'
   element MUST contain one 'usage-rules' element, even if the Rule

   Maker has requested that all subelements be given their default
   values.

   Following the policy requirements document (Section 3.1), there are
   three fields that need to be expressible in Location Objects
   throughout their lifecycle (from Generator to Recipient):  one field
   that limits retransmission, one that limits retention, and one that
   contains a reference to external rulesets.  Those three fields are



Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   instantiated here by the first three elements.  The fourth element
   provides a generic space for human-readable policy directives.  Any
   of these fields MAY be present in a Location Object 'usage-rules'
   element; none are required to be.

   'retransmission-allowed': When the value of this element is 'no', the
      Recipient of this Location Object is not permitted to share the
      enclosed Location Information, or the object as a whole, with
      other parties.  When the value of this element is 'yes',
      distributing this Location is permitted (barring an existing out-
      of-band agreement or obligation to the contrary).  By default, the
      value MUST be assumed to be 'no'.  Implementations MUST include
      this field, with a value of 'no', if the Rule Maker specifies no
      preference.

   'retention-expires': This field specifies an absolute date at which
      time the Recipient is no longer permitted to possess the location
      information and its encapsulating Location Object; both may be
      retained only until the time specified by this field.  By default,
      the value MUST be assumed to be twenty-four hours from the
      'timestamp' element in the PIDF document, if present; if the
      'timestamp' element is also not present, then the value MUST be
      assumed to be twenty-four hours from the time at which the
      Location Object is received by the Location Recipient.  If the
      value in the 'retention-expires' element has already passed when
      the Location Recipient receives the Location Object, the Recipient
      MUST discard the Location Object immediately.

   'ruleset-reference': This field contains a URI that indicates where a
      fuller ruleset of policies, related to this object, can be found.
      This URI SHOULD use the HTTPS URI scheme; and if it does, the
      server that holds these rules MUST authenticate any attempt to
      access these rules.  Usage rules themselves may divulge private
      information about a Target or Rule Maker.  The URI MAY,
      alternatively, use the CID URI scheme [7], in which case it MUST
      denote a MIME body carried with the Location Object by the using
      protocol.  Rulesets carried as MIME bodies SHOULD be encrypted and
      signed by the Rule Maker; unsigned rulesets SHOULD NOT be honored
      by Location Servers or Location Recipients.  Note that in order to
      avoid network lookups that result in an authorization failure,
      creators of Location Objects MAY put HTTPS-based ruleset-
      references into an encrypted external MIME body referenced by a
      CID; in this way, recipients of the Location Object that are
      unable to decrypt the external MIME body will not learn the HTTPS
      URI unless they are able to decrypt the MIME body.






Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   'note-well': This field contains a block of text containing further
      generic privacy directives.  These directives are intended to be
      human-readable only, not to be processed by any automaton.

2.2.3.  'method' Element

   The optional 'method' element describes the way that the location
   information was derived or discovered.  An example of this element
   (for a geographical position system) is:

          <method>gps</method>

   The possible values of the 'method' element are enumerated within an
   IANA registry.  Implementations MUST limit the use of this method to
   the values shepherded by IANA.  This document pre-populates the IANA
   registry with seven possible values; see Section 6.1 for more
   information.

   The 'method' element is useful, for example, when multiple sources
   are reporting location information for a given user, and some means
   of determining location might be considered more authoritative than
   others (i.e., a dynamic, real-time position system versus static
   provisioning associated with a target device).  However, note that
   inclusion of 'method' might reveal sensitive information when the
   generator is providing intentionally coarsened location information.
   For example, when a LO is transmitted with 'DHCP' as the 'method',
   but the location information indicates only the city in which the
   generator is located, the sender has good justification to suspect
   that some location information is being withheld.

2.2.4.  'provided-by' Element

   The optional 'provided-by' element describes the entity or
   organization that supplied this location information (beyond the
   domain information that can be inferred from a signing certificate).
   An example of this element (for a made-up game system) might be:

          <provided-by>
             <test:game>
                West5
             </test:game>
          </provided-by>

   Values for the 'provided-by' element MUST be IANA-registered XML
   namespaces; see Section 6.2 for more information.






Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   The 'provided-by' element is not intended for use by most entities,
   but rather to meet special requirements for which overhead (IANA
   registration, location object size) and potential location
   information leakage are acceptable choices.

   In general cases, the entity that supplied location information is
   communicated by the subjectAltName of the certificate with which the
   location object is signed; thus, this element is unnecessary.
   'Provided-by' is meaningful in particular cases when the creator of a
   location object wants to designate a particular system or party
   within a complex administrative domain, including situations
   envisioned for providing emergency services in a diverse national
   context.  It might assist, for example, the recipient of a malformed
   or misleading location object in identifying the particular system
   that malfunctioned.

   Users should be aware that this information can inadvertently provide
   additional information to the receiver, increasing the effective
   resolution of the geospatial or civic information, or even revealing
   some location information, when it was meant to be entirely
   protected.  Consider if there were circumstances that influenced
   Columbia University to elect to register and use the provided-by
   element.  If an example LO includes only state-level information,
   then including the fact that the location information was provided by
   Columbia University provides a strong indication that the Target is
   actually located in a four-block area in Manhattan.  Accordingly,
   this element should be used only when organizational functions
   strongly would depend on it.  In all but such usages, the
   subjectAltName of the certificate will suffice, and 'provided-by'
   SHOULD NOT be used.

2.2.5.  Schema Definitions

   Note that the XML namespace [4] for this extension to PIDF contains a
   version number 1.0 (as per REQ 2.10).

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <xs:schema
     targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
     xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
     xmlns:gbp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
     xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
     elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

   <xs:import namespace=
        "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy" />

      <!-- This import brings in the XML language attribute xml:lang-->



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


      <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
        schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd"/>

      <xs:element name="geopriv" type="tns:geopriv"/>

   <xs:complexType name="geopriv">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element name="location-info" type="tns:locInfoType"
         minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
      <xs:element name="usage-rules" type="gbp:locPolicyType"
         minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
      <xs:element name="method" type="tns:locMethod"
         minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
      <xs:element name="provided-by" type="tns:locProvidedBy"
         minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
      <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
         maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

   <xs:complexType name="locInfoType">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
         maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

   <xs:complexType name="locMethod">
     <xs:simpleContent>
       <xs:extension base="xs:string">
         <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" />
       </xs:extension>
     </xs:simpleContent>
   </xs:complexType>

   <xs:complexType name="locProvidedBy">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="skip"
         minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

   </xs:schema>

   The 'geopriv10' schema imports, for the 'usage-rules' element, the
   following policy schema.  This schema has been broken out from the
   basic geolocation object in order to allow for its reuse.  The
   semantics associated with these elements, described in Section 2.2.2,



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   apply only to the use of these elements to define policy for
   geolocation objects; any other use of 'usage-rules' must characterize
   its own semantics for all 'usage-rules' subelements.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema
  targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
  xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:basicPolicy"
  xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
  elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

  <!-- This import brings in the XML language attribute xml:lang-->
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
    schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd"/>

  <xs:complexType name="locPolicyType">
   <xs:sequence>
     <xs:element name="retransmission-allowed" type="xs:boolean"
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
     <xs:element name="retention-expiry" type="xs:dateTime"
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
     <xs:element name="external-ruleset" type="xs:anyURI"
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
     <xs:element name="note-well" type="tns:notewell"
        minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
     <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
        maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
   </xs:sequence>
  </xs:complexType>

    <xs:complexType name="notewell">
       <xs:simpleContent>
         <xs:extension base="xs:string">
           <xs:attribute ref="xml:lang" />
         </xs:extension>
       </xs:simpleContent>
    </xs:complexType>

</xs:schema>

   The following schema is a trivial representation of civic location
   that MAY be implemented by entities compliant with this
   specification.

   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <xs:schema
     targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicLoc"
     xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicLoc"



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


     xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
     elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">

      <xs:complexType name="civicAddress">
       <xs:sequence>
         <xs:element name="country" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="A1" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="A2" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="A3" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="A4" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="A5" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="A6" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="PRD" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="POD" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="STS" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="HNO" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="HNS" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="LMK" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="LOC" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="FLR" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="NAM" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:element name="PC" type="xs:string"
            minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
         <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
            maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
       </xs:sequence>
      </xs:complexType>

      </xs:schema>






Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


2.3.  Example Location Objects

   Note that these examples show PIDF documents without any MIME headers
   or security applied to them (see Section 4 below).

   The following XML instance document is an example of the use of a
   simple GML 3.0 markup with a few of the policy directives specified
   above within a PIDF document.  The GPS coordinates given in the 'gml'
   element are for San Francisco, CA.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
    xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
    xmlns:gml="urn:opengis:specification:gml:schema-xsd:feature:v3.0"
    entity="pres:geotarget@example.com">
  <tuple id="sg89ae">
   <status>
    <gp:geopriv>
      <gp:location-info>
        <gml:location>
          <gml:Point gml:id="point1" srsName="epsg:4326">
            <gml:coordinates>37:46:30N 122:25:10W</gml:coordinates>
          </gml:Point>
         </gml:location>
      </gp:location-info>
      <gp:usage-rules>
        <gp:retransmission-allowed>no</gp:retransmission-allowed>
        <gp:retention-expiry>2003-06-23T04:57:29Z</gp:retention-expiry>
      </gp:usage-rules>
    </gp:geopriv>
   </status>
   <timestamp>2003-06-22T20:57:29Z</timestamp>
  </tuple>
 </presence>

   The following XML instance document is an example of the use of the
   civicLoc object with a few of the policy directives specified above
   within a PIDF document.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
    xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
    xmlns:cl=" urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicLoc"
    entity="pres:geotarget@example.com">
  <tuple id="sg89ae">
   <status>
    <gp:geopriv>
      <gp:location-info>



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 14]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


        <cl:civicAddress>
          <cl:country>US</cl:country>
          <cl:A1>New York</cl:A1>
          <cl:A3>New York</cl:A3>
          <cl:A6>Broadway</cl:A6>
          <cl:HNO>123</cl:HNO>
          <cl:LOC>Suite 75</cl:LOC>
          <cl:PC>10027-0401</cl:PC>
        </cl:civicAddress>
      </gp:location-info>
      <gp:usage-rules>
        <gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed>
        <gp:retention-expiry>2003-06-23T04:57:29Z</gp:retention-expiry>
      </gp:usage-rules>
    </gp:geopriv>
   </status>
   <timestamp>2003-06-22T20:57:29Z</timestamp>
  </tuple>
 </presence>

3.  Carrying PIDF in a Using Protocol

   A PIDF document is an XML document; therefore, PIDF might be carried
   in any protocol capable of carrying XML.  A MIME type has also been
   registered for PIDF: 'application/pidf+xml'.  PIDF may therefore be
   carried as a MIME body in protocols that use MIME (such as SMTP,
   HTTP, or SIP) with an encapsulating set of MIME headers, including a
   Content-Type of 'application/pidf+xml'.

   Further specification of the behavior of using protocols (including
   subscribing to or requesting presence information) is outside the
   scope of this document.

4.  Securing PIDF

   There are a number of ways in which XML documents can be secured.
   XML itself supports several ways of partially securing documents,
   including element-level encryption and digital signature properties.

   For the purposes of this document, only the securing of a PIDF
   document as a whole, rather than element-by-element security, is
   considered.  None of the requirements [10] suggest that only part of
   the information in a location object might need to be protected while
   other parts are unprotected; virtually any such configuration would
   introduce potentials for privacy leakage.  Consequently, the use of
   MIME-level security is appropriate.





Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 15]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   S/MIME [5] allows security properties (including confidentiality,
   integrity, and authentication properties) to be applied to the
   contents of a MIME body.  Therefore, all PIDF implementations that
   support the XML Schema extensions for location information described
   in this document MUST support S/MIME; in particular, they MUST
   support the CMS [6] EnvelopedData and SignedData content types, which
   are used for encryption and digital signatures, respectively.  It is
   believed that this mechanism meets REQs 2.10, 13, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3,
   and 14.4.

   Additionally, all compliant applications MUST implement the AES
   encryption algorithm for S/MIME, as specified in [8] (and per REQ
   15.1).  Of course, implementations MUST also support the baseline
   encryption and digital signature algorithms described in the S/MIME
   specification.

   S/MIME generally entails the use of X.509 [9] certificates.  In order
   to encrypt a request for a particular destination end-to-end (i.e.,
   to a Location Recipient), the Location Generator must possess
   credentials (typically an X.509 certificate) that have been issued to
   the Location Recipient.  Implementations of this specification SHOULD
   support X.509 certificates for S/MIME, and MUST support password-
   based CMS encryption (see [6]).  Any symmetric keying systems SHOULD
   derive high-entropy content encoding keys (CEKs).  When X.509
   certificates are used to sign PIDF Location Objects, the
   subjectAltName of the certificate SHOULD use the "pres" URI scheme.

   One envisioned deployment model for S/MIME in PIDF documents is the
   following.  Location Servers hold X.509 certificates and share
   secrets with Location Generators and Location Recipients.  When a
   Generator sends location information to a Server, it can be encrypted
   with S/MIME (or any lower-layer encryption specific to the using
   protocol).  When a Server forwards location information to a
   Recipient, location information can be encrypted with password-based
   CMS encryption.  This allows the use of encryption when the Location
   Recipient does not possess its own X.509 certificate.

   S/MIME was designed for end-to-end security between email peers that
   communicate through multiple servers (i.e mail transfer agents) that
   do not modify message bodies.  There is, however, at least one
   instance in which Location Servers modify Location Objects:  when
   Location Servers enforce policies on behalf of the Rule Maker.  For
   example, a Rule Maker may specify that Location Information should be
   coarsened (made less specific) before it is transmitted to particular
   recipients.  If the Location Server were unable to modify a Location
   Object, because it was encrypted, signed, or both, it would be unable
   to accomplish this function.  Consequently, when a Location Generator
   wants to allow a Location Server to modify such messages, they MAY



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 16]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   encrypt such messages with a key that can be decrypted by the
   Location Server (the digital signature, of course, can still be
   created with keying material from the Location Generator's
   certificate).  After modifying the Location Object, the Location

   Server can re-sign the Object with its own credentials (encrypting it
   with any keys issued to the Location Recipient, if they are known to
   the Server).

   Note that policies for data collection and usage of location
   information, in so far as they are carried within a location object,
   are discussed in Section 2.2.2.

5.  Security Considerations

   The threats facing an Internet protocol that carries geolocation
   information are detailed in [16].  The requirements that were
   identified in that analysis of the threat model were incorporated
   into [10], in particular within Section 7.4.  This document aims to
   be compliant with the security requirements derived from those two
   undertakings, in so far as they apply to the location object itself
   (as opposed to the using protocol).

   Security of the location object defined in this document, including
   normative requirements for implementations, is discussed in Section
   4.  This security focuses on end-to-end integrity and confidentiality
   properties that are applied to a location object for its lifetime via
   S/MIME.

   Security requirements associated with using protocols (including
   authentication of subscribers to geographical information, etc.)  are
   outside the scope of this document.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  'method' Tokens

   This document requests that the IANA create a new registry for
   'method' tokens associated with the PIDF-LO object.  'method' tokens
   are text strings designating the manner in which location information
   in a PIDF-LO object has been derived or discovered.  Any party may
   register new 'method' tokens with the IANA, as needed, on a first-
   come-first-serve basis.

   This section pre-registers 7 new 'method' tokens associated with the
   'method' element described above in Section 2.2.3:





Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 17]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


      GPS: Global Positioning System
      A-GPS: GPS with assistance
      Manual: entered manually by an operator or user, e.g., based on
      subscriber billing or service location information
      DHCP: provided by DHCP (used for wireline access networks, see
      802.11 below)
      Triangulation: triangulated from time-of-arrival, signal strength,
      or similar measurements
      Cell: location of the cellular radio antenna
      802.11: 802.11 access point (used for DHCP-based provisioning over
      wireless access networks)

6.2.  'provided-by' Elements

   This document requests that IANA create a new registry of XML
   namespaces for 'provided-by' elements for use with PIDF-LO objects.
   Registrations of new XML namespaces that are used for 'provided-by'
   MUST be reviewed by an Expert Reviewer designated by the IESG.

   This document pre-registers a single XML namespace for 'provided-by',
   which is given in Appendix A.

6.3.  URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10

   This section registers a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in
   [4].

      URI: The URI for this namespace is
      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10.
      Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
      (geopriv@ietf.org), Jon Peterson (jon.peterson@neustar.biz).
      XML:

   BEGIN
   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
   <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
   <head>
     <meta http-equiv="content-type"
        content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
     <title>GEOPRIV PIDF Extensions</title>
   </head>
   <body>
     <h1>PIDF Extensions of Geographical Information and Privacy</h1>
     <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10</h2>
     <p>See <a href="ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4119.txt">



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 18]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


        RFC4119</a>.</p>
   </body>
   </html>
   END

7.  Acknowledgements

   This document was produced with the assistance of many members of the
   GEOPRIV IETF working group.  Special thanks to Carl Reed of OpenGIS
   for a close read of the document.

   The civic location format described in this document was proposed by
   Henning Schulzrinne for communicating location information in DHCP,
   and has been appropriated in its entirety for this document.

   James M.  Polk provided the text related to the 'method' element, and
   much of the text for the 'provided-by' element.  The text of Appendix
   A was written by Nadine Abbott.

































Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 19]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


A.  Appendix: NENA Provided-By Schema

   The following registers the XML namespace
   urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dataProvider and the associated
   schema below, for usage within the 'provided-by' element of PIDF-LO.
   The dataProvider namespace was developed by the US National Emergency
   Number Administration (NENA) for next-generation emergency
   communications needs.

   This appendix is non-normative for implementers of PIDF-LO
   implementations and MAY support the dataProvider namespace.  Other
   registrants of 'provided-by' namespaces are invited to use the
   registration below as an informative example.

      URI: The URI for this namespace is
      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dataProvider
      Registrant Contact: NENA, VoIP working group & IETF, GEOPRIV
      working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), Nadine Abbott
      (nabbott@telcordia.com).
      XML:

   BEGIN
   <?xml version="1.0"?>
   <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/xhtml-basic10.dtd">
   <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
   <head>
     <meta http-equiv="content-type"
        content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"/>
     <title>NENA dataProvider Schema for PIDF-LO</title>
   </head>
   <body>
     <h1>NENA dataProvider Schema for 'provided-by' in PIDF-LO</h1>
     <h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dataProvider</h2>
     <p>See <a href="ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4119.txt">
        RFC4119</a>.</p>
   </body>
   </html>
   END












Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 20]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


A.1.  dataProvider XML Schema

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- edited with XMLSPY v5 rel. 3 U (http://www.xmlspy.com) by
Patricia Bluhm (HBF Group) -->
<xs:schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dataProvider"
xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:dataProvider"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
     <xs:element name="nena" type="tns:DataProviderIDType"/>
        <xs:complexType name="DataProviderIDType">
                <xs:annotation>
                        <xs:documentation>NENA registered Company ID
for Service Provider supplying location information</xs:documentation>
                </xs:annotation>
                <xs:all>
                        <xs:element name="DataProviderID"
type="tns:NENACompanyIDType" minOccurs="0"/>
                        <xs:element name="TelURI"
type="tns:TelURI_24x7Type" minOccurs="0"/>
                        <xs:element name="URL" type="xs:anyURI"
minOccurs="0"/>
                </xs:all>
        </xs:complexType>
        <xs:simpleType name="NENACompanyIDType">
                <xs:annotation>
                        <xs:documentation>NENA registered Company
ID.</xs:documentation>
                </xs:annotation>
                <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
                        <xs:maxLength value="5"/>
                </xs:restriction>
        </xs:simpleType>
        <xs:simpleType name="TelURI_24x7Type">
                <xs:annotation>
                        <xs:documentation>24x7 Tel URI for the
caller's [location data] service provider.  To be used for contacting
service provider to resolve problems with location data.  Possible
values TN number, enumerated values when not
available.</xs:documentation>
                </xs:annotation>
                <xs:union memberTypes="xs:anyURI">
                        <xs:simpleType>

                               <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
                                   <xs:maxLength value="10"/>
                                   <xs:enumeration value="NOT FOUND"/>



Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 21]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


                                   <xs:enumeration value="UNAVAILABLE"/>
                               </xs:restriction>
                        </xs:simpleType>
                </xs:union>
        </xs:simpleType>
</xs:schema>

Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement
        levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr, W., and
        J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)", RFC
        3863, August 2004.

   [3]  Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)", RFC 3859,
        October 2003.

   [4]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, BCP 81, January
        2004.

   [5]  Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
        (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification", RFC 3851, July
        2004.

   [6]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3852,
        July 2004.

   [7]  Levinson, E., "Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource
        Locators", RFC 2392, August 1998.

   [8]  Schaad, J., "Use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
        Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
        3565, July 2003.

   [9]  Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
        (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling", RFC 3850, July 2004.

Informative References

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

   [11]  Morris, J., Mulligan, D., and J. Cuellar, "Core Privacy
         Protections for Geopriv Location Object", Work in Progress,
         June 2003.




Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 22]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


   [12]  Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence
         and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000.

   [13]  Peterson, J., "A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of
         Geopriv Location Objects", Work in Progress, February 20003.

   [14]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
         Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
         Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, May 2002.

   [15]  OpenGIS, "Open Geography Markup Language (GML) Implementation
         Specification", OGC 02-023r4, January 2003,
         <http://www.opengeospatial.org/specs/?page=specs>.

   [16]  Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J., and J. Peterson, "Threat
         Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", RFC 3694, February 2004.

Author's Address

   Jon Peterson
   NeuStar, Inc.
   1800 Sutter St
   Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520
   US

   Phone: +1 925/363-8720
   EMail: jon.peterson@neustar.biz
   URI:   http://www.neustar.biz/






















Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 23]
^L
RFC 4119                GEOPRIV Location Object            December 2005


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   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
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

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
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   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 ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.







Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 24]
^L