GEOPRIV H. Schulzrinne, Ed. Internet-Draft Columbia U. Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig, Ed. Expires: July 9, 2007 Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG J. Morris CDT J. Cuellar Siemens J. Polk Cisco January 5, 2007 Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-10.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 July 9, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 Abstract This document defines an authorization policy language for controling 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 that allow 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Generic Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Basic Data Model and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Rule Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Location-specific Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Geodetic Location Condition Profile . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Civic Location Condition Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. Set Retransmission-Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Set Retention-Expires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. Set Note-Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.4. Keep Ruleset Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.5. Provide Location Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.5.1. Civic Location Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.5.2. Geodetic Location Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. Rule Example with Civic Location Condition . . . . . . . . 16 7.2. Rule Example with Geodetic Location Condition . . . . . . 17 7.3. Rule Example with Civic and Geodetic Location Condition . 18 7.4. Rule Example with Location-based Transformations . . . . . 19 8. XML Schema for Location Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. XML Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Geolocation Policy Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.2. Geolocation Policy Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . 24 10.3. Geolocation Policy Location Profile Registry . . . . . . . 25 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 1. Introduction Location information needs to be protected against unauthorized access to preserve the privacy of humans. In RFC 3693 [1], a protocol-independent model for access to geographic information is defined. The model includes a Location Generator (LG) that determines location information, a Location Server (LS) that authorizes access to location information, a Location Recipient (LR) that requests and receives location information, and a Rule Maker (RM) that writes authorization policies. An authorization policy is a set of rules that regulates an entity's activities with respect to privacy-sensitive information, such as location information. The data object containing location information in the context of this document is referred to as a Location Object (LO). The basic rule set defined in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) [2] can restrict how long the Location Recipient is allowed to retain the information, and it can prohibit further distribution. It also contains a reference to an enhanced rule set and a human readable privacy policy. The basic rule set, however, does not allow to control access to location information based on specific Location Recipients. This document describes an enhanced rule set that provides richer constraints on the distribution of LOs. The rule set allows the entity that uses the rules defined in this document to restrict the retention and to enforce access restrictions on location data, including prohibiting any dissemination to particular individuals, during particular times or when the Target is located in a specific region. The RM can also stipulate that only certain parts of the Location Object are to be distributed to recipients or that the resolution of parts of the Location Object is reduced. The typical sequence of operations is as follows. A Location Server receives a query for location information for a particular Target, via the using protocol [1]. The using protocol provides the identity of the requestor, either at the time of the query or when subscribing to the location information. The authenticated identity of the Location Recipient, together with other information provided by the using protocol or generally available to the server, is then used for searching through the rule set. If more than one rule matches the condition element, then the combined permission is evaluated according to the description in Section 10 of [3]. The result of the rule evalation is applied to the location information, yielding a possibly modified Location Object that is delivered to the Location Recipient. This document does not describe or mandate Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 o the protocol used to convey location information from the Location Server to the Location Recipient (i.e., the using protocol; see RFC 3693 [1]), o the protocol to update authorization policies defined in this document (although the usage of XCAP [10] is suggested), o the protocol used between the Location Generator and the Location Server to deliver location information. This document extends the Common Policy framework defined in [3]. That document provides an abstract framework for expressing authorization policy rules. As specified there, each such rule consists of conditions, actions and transformations. Conditions determine under which circumstances the entity executing the rules, for example a Location Server, is permitted to apply actions and transformations. Transformations regulate in a location information context how a Location Server handles Location Objects; it might limit when and how data and the authorization policy can be distributed and may modify the information elements that are returned to the requestor, for example, by reducing the granularity of returned location information. The XML schema defined in Section 9 extends the Common Policy schema by introducing new child elements to the condition and transformation elements. This document does not define child elements for the action part of a rule. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 2. 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 RFC 2119 [4]. This document reuses the terminology of RFC 3693 [1], such as Location Server (LS), Location Recipient (LR), Rule Maker (RM), Target, Location Generator (LG) and Location Object (LO). This document and the common policy document [3] share the following terminology: Presentity or Target: RFC 3693 [1] uses the term Target to identify the object or person of which location information is required. The presence model described in RFC 2778 [11] uses the term presentity to describe the entity that provides presence information to a presence service. A Presentity in a presence system is a Target in a location information system. Watcher or Location Recipient: The receiver of location information is the Location Recipient (LR) in the terminology of RFC 3693 [1]. A watcher in a presence system, i.e., an entity that requests presence information about a presentity, is a Location Recipient in a location information system. Authorization policy: An authorization policy is given by a rule set. A rule set contains an unordered list of rules. Each rule has a condition, an action and a transformation component. Permission: The term permission refers to the action and transformation components of a rule. The terms 'authorization policy', 'policy' and 'rule set' are used interchangeable. The terms 'authorization policy rule', 'policy rule' and 'rule' are used interchangeable. The term 'using protocol' is defined in [1] and refers to the Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 protocol that is used to request access to and to return privacy sensitive data items. Note that this document often points to Location Servers as the entities that evaluate the authorization policies described in this document. The geolocation privacy architecture is, as motivated in RFC 4079 [12], aligned with the presence architecture and a Presence Server is an entity that distributes location information along with other presence-specific XML data elements. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 3. Generic Processing 3.1. Basic Data Model and Processing Since this document extents the Common Policy framework defined in [3], it also inherits its basic data model and processing. 3.2. Rule Transport There are two ways how the authorization rules described in this document may be conveyed between different parties: o RFC 4119 [2] allows enhanced authorization policies to be referenced via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) in the 'ruleset- reference' element. The ruleset-reference' element is part of the basic rules that always travel with the Location Object. o Authorization policies might, for example, also be stored at a Location Server / Presence Server. The Rule Maker therefore needs to use a protocol to create, modify and delete the authorization policies defined in this document. Such a protocol is available with the Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) [10]. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 4. Location-specific Conditions This section describes the location-specific conditions of a rule, namely the civic and geodetic location conditions. The element MAY contain zero, one or an unbounded number of child element(s). Providing more than one child element may not be useful since all child elements of the element must evaluate to TRUE in order for the element to be TRUE. The element MUST contain at least one child element. The element evaluates to TRUE if any of its child elements is TRUE, i.e., a logical OR. A location profile needs to describe under what conditions each element evaluates to TRUE. This document defines two location profiles, one civic and one geodetic location profile. The and the elements provide extension points. If an extension is not understood by the entity evaluating the rules then the rule evaluates to FALSE. 4.1. Geodetic Location Condition Profile The geodetic location profile is identified by the token 'geodetic- condition'. Rule Makers use this profile by placing a GML [5] element within the element. The element containing the information for the geodetic location profile evaluates to TRUE if the current location of the Target is within the described Polygon. This might require a point- in-polygon, polygon-in-polygon, or a similar computation. If the geodetic location of the Target is unknown then the element containing the information for the geodetic location profile evaluates to FALSE. The polygon that uses the "gml:Polygon" element is specified by a sequence of points. A polygon requires at least four points, where the first and last point MUST be the same. Points specified in a polygon MUST be coplanar. However, implementations SHOULD be prepared to accept small variations that might occur depending on whether the the polygon is specified on a plane in space, or only relative to the ellipsoid. To avoid implementation complexity, implementations MAY choose to not support polygons that include varying altitude. Therefore, two polygon forms are permitted: polygons specified using EPSG 4326, and polygons specified using EPSG 4979 with a constant altitude value. Interpolation between points is linear, as defined for the "gml: Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 LinearRing" element. Implementations SHOULD minimize this interpolation error by ensuring that the sides of polygons are as short as possible. Implementations are REQUIRED to support the following coordinate reference systems based on WGS 84 [6]. These are identified using the European Petroleum Survey Group (EPSG) Geodetic Parameter Dataset, as formalized by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC): 2D: WGS 84 (latitude, longitude), as identified by the URN "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326". This is a two dimensional CRS. 3D: WGS 84 (latitude, longitude, altitude), as identified by the URN "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4979". This is a three dimensional CRS. The most recent version of the EPSG Geodetic Parameter Dataset SHOULD be used. A CRS MUST be specified using the above URN notation only, implementations do not need to support user-defined CRSs. Implementations MUST specify the CRS using the "srsName" attribute on the outermost geometry element. The CRS MUST NOT be changed for any sub-elements. The "srsDimension" attribute MUST be omitted, since the number of dimensions in these CRSs is known. 4.2. Civic Location Condition Profile The civic location profile is identified by the token 'civic- condition'. Rule Makers use this profile by placing a element, defined in [7], within the element. All child elements of element that carry civicAddress elements MUST evaluate to TRUE (i.e., logical AND) in order for the element to evaluate to TRUE. For each element value a string-by-string comparison is performed. The element containing information of the civic location profile evaluates to TRUE if all child elements evaluate to TRUE (i.e., a logical AND). If the civic location of the Target is unknown, then the element containing the information for the civic location profile evaluates to FALSE. This case may occur, for example, if location information has been removed by earlier transmitters of location information or if only the geodetic location is known. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 5. Actions This document does not define location-specific actions. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 6. Transformations This document defines several elements that allow Rule Makers to specify transformations that o reduce the accuracy of the returned location information, and o set the basic authorization policies carried inside the PIDF-LO. 6.1. Set Retransmission-Allowed This element asks the LS to change or set the value of the element in the PIDF-LO. The data type of the element is a boolean. If the value of the element is set to TRUE then the element in the PIDF-LO MUST be set to TRUE. If the value of the element is set to FALSE, then the element in the PIDF-LO MUST to be set to FALSE. If the element is absent then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO MUST be kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time, then the value MUST be set to FALSE. 6.2. Set Retention-Expires This transformation asks the LS to change or set the value of the element in the PIDF-LO. The data type of the element is an integer. The value provided with the element indicates seconds and these seconds are added to the current date. If the element is absent then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time, then the value MUST be set to 0, i.e., immediate expiry. 6.3. Set Note-Well This transformation asks the LS to change or set the value of the element in the PIDF-LO. The data type of the element is a string. The value provided with the element contains a privacy statement as a human readable text string and an 'xml:lang' Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 attribute denotes the language of the human readable text. If the element is absent, then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time, then no content is provided for the note-well element. 6.4. Keep Ruleset Reference This transformation allows to influence whether the element in the PIDF-LO carries the extended authorization rules defined in [3]. The data type of the element is Boolean. If the value of the element is set to TRUE, then the the element in the PIDF-LO is set to TRUE. If the value of the element is set to FALSE, then the element in the PIDF-LO MUST NOT contain a reference. The reference to the ruleset is removed and no rules are carried as MIME bodies (in case of CID URIs). If the element is absent, then the value of the element in the PIDF-LO is kept unchanged or, if the PIDF-LO is created for the first time then the element MUST NOT contain a reference. 6.5. Provide Location Information The element contains child elements of a specific location profile that controls the granularity of returned location information. This document defines two location profiles that appear as and child elements of the element. The element MAY contain a and/or a child element to control the granularity of location information being made available. If the element has a child element then civic location information is disclosed as described in Section 6.5.1, subject to availability. If the element has a child element then geodetic location information is disclosed as described in Section 6.5.2, subject to availability. If the element has no child elements then civic as well as geodetic location information is disclosed without reducing its granularity, subject to availability. 6.5.1. Civic Location Profile This profile uses the token 'civic-transformation'. This profile allows civic location transformations to be specified by means of the Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 element that restricts the level of civic location information the LS is permitted to disclose. The symbols of these levels are: 'country', 'region', 'city', 'building', 'full'. Each level is given by a set of civic location data items such as and , ..., , as defined in [7]. Each level includes all elements included by the lower levels. The 'country' level includes only the element; the 'region' level adds the element; the 'city' level adds the and elements; the 'building' level and the 'full' level add further civic location data as shown below: full {, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,, , , , , , , , } | | building {, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , } | | city {, , } | | region {, } | | country {} | | { } The schema of the element is defined in Section 8. 6.5.2. Geodetic Location Profile This profile uses the token 'geodetic-transformation'. This profile allows geodetic location transformations to be specified by means of the element that restrict the resolution of geodetic location information based on the value provided in the , and child elements of the element. The resolution is specified as a positive, non-zero number r. If n is the nominal coordinate value (longitude or latitude), the rounded value is computed as floor(n/r + 0.5) * r. For example, if the latitude is n=38.89868 and r=0.01, the latitude value rendered for the Location Recipient is 38.90. If the longitude is n=77.03723 and r=0.01, the longitude is rendered as 77.04. This computation also works for values of r that are not integer powers of 10 or r > 1. For example, to round longitude to timezone accuracy, one would use r=15 and obtain a value of 75 in this example. If no (respectively and ) child element is provided then the latitude (respectively longitude and altitude) value is provided in the available accuracy. The schema of the element is defined in Section 8. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 7. Examples This section provides three examples for authorization policy rules using the extensions defined in this document. 7.1. Rule Example with Civic Location Condition This example illustrates a single rule that employs the civic location condition that matches if the current location of the Target matches the content of the child elements of the element. Requests match only if the Target is at a civic location with country set to 'Germany', state (A1) set to 'Bavaria', city (A3) set to 'Munich', city division (A4) set to 'Perlach', street name (A6) set to 'Otto-Hahn-Ring' and house number (HNO) set to '6'. No actions and transformation child elements are provided in this rule example. The actions and transformation could include presence specific information when the Geolocation Policy framework is applied to the Presence Policy framework (see [13]). DE Bavaria Munich Perlach Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 7.2. Rule Example with Geodetic Location Condition This example illustrates a rule that employs the geodetic location condition. The rule matches if the current location of the Target is inside the area specified by the polygon. The polygon uses the EPSG 4326 coordinate reference system. No altitude is included in this example, indicating that altitude is unknown. 42.556844 -73.248157 42.549631 -73.237283 42.539087 -73.240328 42.535756 -73.254242 42.542969 -73.265115 42.553513 -73.262075 42.556844 -73.248157 The following alternative example shows the same polygon with a constant altitude included that is specified using EPSG 4979 and the "gml:posList" element. The "gml:posList" element is interpreted as a list with the dimension of the CRS indicating how many values are required for each point. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 42.556844 -73.248157 36.6 42.549631 -73.237283 36.6 42.539087 -73.240328 36.6 42.535756 -73.254242 36.6 42.542969 -73.265115 36.6 42.553513 -73.262075 36.6 42.556844 -73.248157 36.6 7.3. Rule Example with Civic and Geodetic Location Condition This example illustrates a rule that employs a mixed civic and geodetic location condition. Depending on the available type of location information, namely civic or geodetic location information, one of the location elements may match. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 DE Bavaria Munich Perlach Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 42.556844 -73.248157 42.549631 -73.237283 42.539087 -73.240328 42.535756 -73.254242 42.542969 -73.265115 42.553513 -73.262075 42.556844 -73.248157 7.4. Rule Example with Location-based Transformations This example shows the transformations specified in this document. The element indicates that the available civic location information is reduced to building level granularity. If geodetic location information is requested then a granularity reduction is provided as well. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 false 86400 Don't distribute by location. false building 0.01 0.01 0.01 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 8. XML Schema for Location Profiles This section defines the location profiles used as child elements of the transformation element. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 9. XML Schema This section presents the XML schema that defines the Geolocation Policy schema described in this document. The Geolocation Policy schema extends the Common Policy schema (see [3]) by introducing new members of the 'condition' and 'transformation' substitution groups whose heads (namely the elements and ). Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 10. IANA Considerations There are several IANA considerations associated with this specification. 10.1. Geolocation Policy Schema Registration URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geolocation-policy Registrant Contact: IETF Geopriv Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com). XML: The XML schema to be registered is contained in Section 9. Its first line is and its last line is 10.2. Geolocation Policy Namespace Registration URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geolocation-policy Registrant Contact: IETF Geopriv Working Group, Hannes Tschofenig (hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com). XML: Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 BEGIN Geolocation Policy Namespace

Namespace for Geolocation Authorization Policies

urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:geolocation-policy

See RFCXXXX [NOTE TO IANA/RFC-EDITOR: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this specification.].

END 10.3. Geolocation Policy Location Profile Registry This document seeks to create a registry of location profile names for the Geolocation Policy framework. Profile names are XML tokens. This registry will operate in accordance with RFC 2434 [8], Standards Action. This document defines the following profile names: geodetic-condition: Defined in Section 4.1. civic-condition: Defined in Section 4.2. geodetic-transformation: Defined in Section 6.5.2. civic-transformation: Defined in Section 6.5.1. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 11. Security Considerations This document aims to make it simple for users to prevent the unintended disclosure of private information to third parties. Security threats are described in [9] and are applicable to this draft as well. Security requirements are addressed in [1]. Aspects of combining permissions in cases of multiple occurrence are treated in [3]). How the behavior of Location Servers can be regulated in terms of Location Object handling in a privacy-safe fashion is specified in Section 6. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 12. References 12.1. Normative References [1] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004. [2] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format", RFC 4119, December 2005. [3] Schulzrinne, H., "Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences", draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-11 (work in progress), August 2006. [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [5] OpenGIS, "OpenGIS Geography Markup Language (GML) Implementation Specification, Version 3.00, OGC 02 023r4", http://www.opengeospatial.org/docs/02-023r4.pdf, January 2003. [6] OpenGIS, "US National Imagery and Mapping Agency, "Department of Defense (DoD) World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84), Third Edition, NIMA TR8350.2", , January 2000. [7] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location Format for PIDF-LO", draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-04 (work in progress), September 2006. [8] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [9] Danley, M., Mulligan, D., Morris, J., and J. Peterson, "Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol", RFC 3694, February 2004. 12.2. Informative References [10] Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", draft-ietf-simple-xcap-12 (work in progress), October 2006. [11] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence and Instant Messaging", RFC 2778, February 2000. [12] Peterson, J., "A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects", RFC 4079, July 2005. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 [13] Rosenberg, J., "Presence Authorization Rules", draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-08 (work in progress), October 2006. [14] Thomson, M., "Geodetic Shapes for the Representation of Uncertainty in PIDF-LO", draft-thomson-geopriv-geo-shape-03 (work in progress), December 2006. [15] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 Appendix A. Acknowledgments This document is informed by the discussions within the IETF GEOPRIV working group, including discussions at the GEOPRIV interim meeting in Washington, D.C., in 2003. We particularly want to thank Allison Mankin , Randall Gellens , Andrew Newton , Ted Hardie , Jon Peterson for their help in improving the quality of this document. We would like to thank Christian Guenther for his help with an earlier version of this document. Furthermore, we would like to thank Johnny Vrancken for a several document reviews and the suggestions he provided between September and December 2006. James Winterbottom provided a detailed review in November 2006. This document uses text from [14]. Therefore, we would like to thank Martin Thomson for his work on [14]. Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 Authors' Addresses Henning Schulzrinne (editor) Columbia University Department of Computer Science 450 Computer Science Building New York, NY 10027 USA Phone: +1 212 939 7042 Email: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs Hannes Tschofenig (editor) Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich, Bavaria 81739 Germany Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com URI: http://www.tschofenig.com John B. Morris, Jr. Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 USA Email: jmorris@cdt.org URI: http://www.cdt.org Jorge R. Cuellar Siemens Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Munich, Bavaria 81739 Germany Email: Jorge.Cuellar@siemens.com Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 2007 James Polk Cisco 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike Richardson, Texas 75082 USA Email: jmpolk@cisco.com Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Geolocation Policy January 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). Schulzrinne, et al. Expires July 9, 2007 [Page 32]