1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Bellis
Request for Comments: 6915 Nominet UK
Updates: 6155 April 2013
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Flow Identity Extension for HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
Abstract
RFC 6155 specifies an extension for the HTTP-Enabled Location
Delivery (HELD) protocol, allowing the use of an IP address and port
number to request a Device location based on an individual packet
flow.
However, certain kinds of NAT require that identifiers for both ends
of the packet flow must be specified in order to unambiguously
satisfy the location request.
This document specifies an XML Schema and a URN Sub-Namespace for a
Flow Identity Extension for HELD to support this requirement.
This document updates RFC 6155 by deprecating the port number
elements specified therein.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6915.
Bellis Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bellis Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
1. Introduction
Work at the Emergency Location Task Group of NICC Standards Limited
(the UK's telecoms industry standards body) prompted the addition of
port number identifiers in HELD Identity [RFC6155] to allow HELD
[RFC5985] requests for Devices that are behind NAT devices.
Subsequent analysis has determined that in the presence of particular
types of NAT devices, and in particular Carrier Grade NATs, it is
necessary to know the complete tuple of (Layer 3 protocol, Layer 4
protocol, source address, source port, destination address,
destination port) in order to unambiguously identify a flow, and
subsequently the true Device.
This document specifies an XML Schema and a URN Sub-Namespace for a
Flow Identity Extension to support this requirement and provides a
more generally applicable means of identifying a Device based on the
parameters of a network flow of which it is an endpoint.
Since the Location Recipient may not know in advance whether the
Device is behind a NAT device, the port number elements from Section
3.3 of [RFC6155] are deprecated and MUST NOT be used in new client
implementations. Note that server implementations of this
specification may still encounter requests formed by clients that
have implemented only [RFC6155], and those requests might contain the
deprecated port element.
For implementation details not specified in this document, please
refer to [RFC6155] and [RFC5985].
2. 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 [RFC2119].
The terms "Device" and "Target" are used as defined in [RFC6280].
Bellis Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
3. Usage
An example HELD request is shown below:
<locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"
responseTime="8">
<locationType exact="true">geodetic</locationType>
<flow xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow"
layer4="tcp" layer3="ipv4">
<src>
<address>192.0.2.25</address>
<port>1024</port>
</src>
<dst>
<address>198.51.100.238</address>
<port>80</port>
</dst>
</flow>
</locationRequest>
The <flow> element MUST contain:
o a "layer3" attribute with a value of "ipv4" or "ipv6".
o a "layer4" attribute with a value of "udp" [RFC0768], "tcp"
[RFC0793], "sctp" [RFC4960], "dccp" [RFC4340], or a decimal
integer representing any applicable protocol from the IANA
Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers Registry.
o an <src> element and a <dst> element whose child elements contain
the Layer 3 address (which MUST conform to the relevant
"IPv4address" or "IPv6address" grammar as defined in [RFC3986])
and the Layer 4 port number of each end of the flow.
and MAY optionally contain:
o a "target" attribute with a value of "src" (default) or "dst" to
indicate which end of the flow corresponds to the Target of the
<locationRequest> with respect to the HELD protocol.
Bellis Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
4. XML Schema
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:flow="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow"
elementFormDefault="qualified">
<xs:annotation>
<xs:appinfo
source="urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geopriv:held:flow">
HELD Flow Identity</xs:appinfo>
<xs:documentation
source="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6915.txt">
This document defines Flow Identity elements for HELD.
</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>
<xs:element name="flow" type="flow:flowIdentity"/>
<xs:complexType name="flowIdentity">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="src" type="flow:flowEndpoint"/>
<xs:element name="dst" type="flow:flowEndpoint"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name="target" default="src">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:pattern value="(src|dst)"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="layer3" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:pattern value="(ipv4|ipv6)"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
<xs:attribute name="layer4" use="required">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:pattern value="(udp|tcp|sctp|dccp|\d+)"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:complexType>
Bellis Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
<xs:complexType name="flowEndpoint">
<xs:all>
<xs:element name="address">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token"/>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="port">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedShort">
<xs:minInclusive value="1"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:element>
</xs:all>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow
This section registers a new XML namespace,
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow", as per the guidelines in
[RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow
Registrant Contact: IETF GEOPRIV Working Group (geopriv@ietf.org),
Ray Bellis (ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk)
Bellis Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
XML:
BEGIN
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>HELD Flow Identity Parameters</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for HELD Flow Identity Parameters</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow</h2>
<p>See <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6915.txt">
RFC 6915</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
5.2. XML Schema Registration
This section registers an XML Schema as per the guidelines in
[RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:flow
Registrant Contact: IETF GEOPRIV Working Group (geopriv@ietf.org),
Ray Bellis (ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk)
Schema: The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of
Section 4 of this document.
6. Privacy Considerations
All of the considerations in [RFC6155] apply to the use of the
mechanism defined in this document. Like [RFC6155], this
specification assumes that the Location Server being queried already
has access to the internal state of the network near one end of the
flow being queried (for instance, access to the bindings in a NAT in
the path of the flow). Clients making queries using this
specification in environments where that assumption may not be true
should be aware that the request provides information about that
client's communications that the Location Server would not otherwise
be able to discern and may represent additional privacy exposure for
that client.
Bellis Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
7. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those
in [RFC6155].
8. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the members of the NICC Emergency Location
Task Group, the IETF GeoPriv Working Group, and the authors of
[RFC6155], from which the text for the URN and XML Schema
Registrations were derived.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)", RFC
5985, September 2010.
[RFC6155] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., Tschofenig, H., and R.
Barnes, "Use of Device Identity in HTTP-Enabled Location
Delivery (HELD)", RFC 6155, March 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007.
Bellis Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6915 Flow Identity for HELD April 2013
[RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for
Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
BCP 160, RFC 6280, July 2011.
Author's Address
Ray Bellis
Nominet UK
Edmund Halley Road
Oxford OX4 4DQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1865 332211
EMail: ray.bellis@nominet.org.uk
URI: http://www.nominet.org.uk/
Bellis Standards Track [Page 9]
^L
|