GEOPRIV M. Thomson
Internet-Draft J. Winterbottom
Intended status: Standards Track Andrew
Expires: August 26, 2007 February 22, 2007
A BEEP Binding for the HELD Protocol
draft-thomson-geopriv-held-beep-00.txt
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-
Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
Abstract
A BEEP binding is described for HELD. This binding is more suitable
than the basic HTTP binding in scenarios where multiple messages are
sent between the same two parties. Discovery methods relating to
this binding are described.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The HELD BEEP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Channel Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Message Exchange Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. LIS Discovery and Authentication for BEEP . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. S-NAPTR Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. BEEP Profile Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. URN sun-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep' . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Registration of a LIS Application Protocol Tag for
HELD over BEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
1. Introduction
The HTTP binding for HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
provides a basis for the protocol, which does not encumber
implementations with a complex protocol stack. However, some
applications require that a requester make multiple requests in
parallel to a Location Information Server (LIS). This is especially
important when HELD identity extensions
[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions] are applied. Use
cases for identity extensions can be found in [NENA.08-505].
The HTTP binding is not suitable in volume scenarios because HTTP
suffers from head-of-queue blocking. This prevents multiple requests
from being processed in parallel. In order to achieve higher
throughput, the requester must establish multiple TCP connections in
parallel. Now, while this could be considered a feature of HTTP,
this causes HTTP to be unsuitable for applications where multiple
parallel requests are expected.
BEEP [RFC3080] provides a framing scheme that allows for parallel
requests. BEEP uses MIME [RFC2045] for its messages, which means
that no significant modifications are required to carry HELD
messages. This document describes a BEEP profile for HELD.
1.1. Terminology
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].
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
2. The HELD BEEP Profile
The BEEP profile for HELD is identified as:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep
in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation.
The HELD channel is a simple continuous channel that does not require
any state information. Requests and their respective responses are
always in the request-response form ("MSG"/"RPY").
2.1. Channel Initialization
The HELD profile is started with a single "profile" request. No
additional parameters are required. When initiating a channel the
"profile" element MUST be empty, as shown in the example below.
<start number="1" serverName="lis.example.com">
<profile uri="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep"/>
</start>
The "serverName" attribute on the "start" message serves the same
purpose as the HTTP [RFC2616] "Host" header in information the server
of the name it is known by.
Similarly, the response to channel initialization MUST be empty.
<profile uri="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep"/>
2.2. Message Exchange Pattern
The BEEP binding for HELD requires only the "MSG"/"RPY" message
exchange. Each "MSG" frame contains a request, which may be either a
"locationRequest", "createContext" or "updateContext". Each "RPY"
frame includes a response, either a PIDF-LO (i.e. "presence"), or a
"contextResponse".
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
The following exchange demonstrates how a simple HELD location
request and response are encapsulated. The "C:" and "S:" prefixes on
lines are used in the convention of [RFC3080].
C: MSG 1 7 . 544 125
C: Content-Type: application/held+xml
C:
C: <?xml version="1.0"?>
C: <locationRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held"/>
C: END
S: RPY 1 7 . 1902 695
S: Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
S:
S: <?xml version="1.0"?>
S: <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
S: entity="pres:3650n87934c@lis.example.com">
S:
S: <!-- PIDF-LO contents not shown -->
S:
S: </presence>
S: END
2.3. Error Handling
The HELD BEEP binding does not use the BEEP "ERR" message to indicate
errors at the HELD protocol level. Errors in handling HELD Requests
are indicated to the requester in a "RPY" message.
Errors in the BEEP message that are unrelated to the HELD protocol,
such as MIME formatting problems, are indicated using the BEEP "ERR"
message.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
3. LIS Discovery and Authentication for BEEP
This profile is most suited to situations where a client and LIS
exchange a large number of requests over a prolonged period. It is
anticipated that the client and LIS are known to each other.
Based on this assumption, it is reasonable for the LIS and its
clients to have pre-existing configuration that makes discovery
unnecessary. In addition, authentication details and methods can be
pre-configured on both nodes.
There is no well known port for this protocol binding.
3.1. Authentication
Regardless of the method used to determine the address of the LIS, a
client MUST authenticate the LIS. This prevents any LIS spoofing
attacks that could be used to acquire information about the client
(and in turn, their clients).
For persistent connections, it is RECOMMENDED that the LIS also
authenticate clients. Some authorization decision is likely to be
necessary in order for a client to initiate a large volume of
requests, which could represent significant load on a LIS.
This document does not mandate any specific authentication method;
however, since TLS MUST be implemented, the mandatory methods in
[RFC4346] are assumed to be present. Alternative authentication
methods can be negotiated between the LIS and its clients.
3.2. S-NAPTR Discovery
In discovering a BEEP-enabled LIS, the client needs to discover the
IP address of the LIS host and the TCP port that the LIS service
uses. Unlike in [I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery], where a URI is
required, Straightforward NAPTR (S-NAPTR) [RFC3958] is all that is
necessary in this case. Therefore, for this Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS), a terminal "s" flag is required.
This document registers a new protocol tag for a BEEP enabled LIS.
The "HELD+BEEP" Application Protocol tag. The terminal record for
this application protocol type is an SRV record [RFC2782]. Domain
discovery can be applied in the same way as described in
[I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery].
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
The following example shows the BEEP and HTTP bindings for the
"example.com" LIS. This resolves to port 8773 of the host at
"lis.example.com":
example.com.
;; order pref flags
IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "LIS:HELD" ( ; service
"!*.!https://lis.example.com/!" ; regex
. ; replacement
)
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "LIS:HELD+BEEP" ( ; service
"" ; regex
lis.example.com. ; replacement
)
lis.example.com.
;; order pref port host
IN SRV 100 10 8773 lis.example.com.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
4. Security Considerations
TLS [RFC4346] SHOULD be used for HELD over BEEP unless
confidentiality, message integrity and authentication are assured
through other means (e.g. dedicated media). It is RECOMMENDED that
BEEP peers establish a TLS connection immediately, rather than
relying on the TLS tuning profile in BEEP.
Discovery using DDDS, is subject to the same limitations and
considerations outlined in [I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery]. This
is mitigated by the scenarios in which this binding is appropriate,
namely where pre-arranged relationships between LIS and client.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. BEEP Profile Registration
This section outlines the HELD BEEP binding in the form described in
[RFC3080].
Profile Identification: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep
Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: none
Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: "locationRequest",
"createContext" and "updateContext" (from the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" namespace)
Messages in positive replies: "contextResponse" (from the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" namespace), "presence" (from
the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf" namespace)
Messages in negative replies: "error" (from the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held" namespace)
Messages in one-to-many exchanges: none
Message Syntax: c.f., HELD
[I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery], PIDF [RFC3863], PIDF-LO
[RFC4119]
Message Semantics: c.f., HELD
[I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
Contact Information: c.f., the "Author's Address" section of this
document
5.2. URN sun-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep'
This section registers a new XML namespace,
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep", as per the guidelines in
[RFC3688].
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep
Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group,
(geopriv@ietf.org), Martin Thomson (martin.thomson@andrew.com).
XML:
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
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 BEEP Binding</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Namespace for HELD BEEP Binding Profile</h1>
<h2>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:beep</h2>
[[NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please update RFC URL and replace XXXX
with the RFC number for this specification.]]
<p>See <a href="[[RFC URL]]">RFCXXXX</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
END
5.3. Registration of a LIS Application Protocol Tag for HELD over BEEP
This section registers a new S-NAPTR Application Protocol tag for the
BEEP binding of the HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
protocol, as mandated by [RFC3958].
Application Service Tag: HELD+BEEP
Intended Usage: Identifies the HELD protocol over BEEP
Applicable Service Tag(s): LIS
Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s): S
Defining Publication: RFCXXXX
Related Publications: HELD [I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
Contact Information: The authors of this document
Author/Change Controller: The IESG
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
6. Alternative Solutions
The BEEP binding for SOAP [RFC4227] was used as a reference in the
construction of this document and was considered as a possible
alternative to the solution described. However, the state associated
with each channel (namely the path to the selected service or the
boot state) is unnecessary, since the LIS is a single service. The
state also hinders any possible use of this protocol in relation with
location URIs. The SOAP envelope is also unnecessary for this
protocol. Note that this does not preclude the use of a separate
SOAP+BEEP binding for HELD.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000.
[RFC3080] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
RFC 3080, March 2001.
[RFC3863] Sugano, H., Fujimoto, S., Klyne, G., Bateman, A., Carr,
W., and J. Peterson, "Presence Information Data Format
(PIDF)", RFC 3863, August 2004.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[I-D.winterbottom-http-location-delivery]
Winterbottom, J., "HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-04 (work in
progress), October 2006.
[I-D.thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery]
Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "LIS Discovery",
draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-00 (work in progress),
February 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC4227] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, January 2006.
[I-D.winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions]
Winterbottom, J. and M. Thomson, "HELD End-Point identity
Extensions",
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-00
(work in progress), October 2006.
[NENA.08-505]
NENA, "NENA Recommended Method(s) for Location
Determination to Support IP-Based Emergency Services",
Technical Information Document 08-505, Issue 1,
December 2006,
<http://www.nena.org/media/files/08-505_20061221.pdf>.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
Authors' Addresses
Martin Thomson
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2915
Email: martin.thomson@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
James Winterbottom
Andrew
PO Box U40
Wollongong University Campus, NSW 2500
AU
Phone: +61 2 4221 2938
Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com
URI: http://www.andrew.com/
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HELD over BEEP February 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 26, 2007 [Page 15]