GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5986

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Thomson Request for Comments: 5986 J. Winterbottom Category: Standards Track Andrew Corporation ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2010

      Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS)

Abstract

 Discovery of the correct Location Information Server (LIS) in the
 local access network is necessary for Devices that wish to acquire
 location information from the network.  A method is described for the
 discovery of a LIS in the access network serving a Device.  Dynamic
 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) options for IP versions 4 and 6
 are defined that specify a domain name.  This domain name is then
 used as input to a URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) resolution process.

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/rfc5986.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 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.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction and Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   1.1.  Discovery Procedure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 2.  LIS Discovery Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.  Residential Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.2.  Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 3.  Determining a Domain Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.1.  Domain Name Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.2.  Access Network Domain Name DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.3.  Access Network Domain Name DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.4.  Alternative Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 4.  U-NAPTR Resolution of a LIS URI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.1.  Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes . . . . . . 13
   6.2.  Registration of a Location Server Application Service
         Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.3.  Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol
         Tag for HELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Introduction and Overview

 The location of a Device is a useful and sometimes necessary part of
 many services.  A Location Information Server (LIS) is responsible
 for providing that location information to Devices with attached
 access networks used to provide Internet access.  The LIS uses
 knowledge of the access network and its physical topology to generate
 and serve location information to Devices.
 Each access network requires specific knowledge about topology.
 Therefore, it is important to discover the LIS that has the specific
 knowledge necessary to locate a Device, that is, the LIS that serves
 the current access network.  Automatic discovery is important where
 there is any chance of movement outside a single access network.
 Reliance on static configuration can lead to unexpected errors if a
 Device moves between access networks.
 This document describes a process that a Device can use to discover a
 LIS.  This process uses a DHCP option and the DNS.  The product of
 this discovery process is an HTTP [RFC2616] or HTTPS [RFC2818] URI
 that identifies a LIS.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 The URI result from the discovery process is suitable for location
 configuration only; that is, the Device MUST dereference the URI
 using the process described in HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
 [RFC5985].  URIs discovered in this way are not "location URIs"
 [RFC5808]; dereferencing one of them provides the location of the
 requestor only.  Devices MUST NOT embed these URIs in fields in other
 protocols designed to carry the location of the Device.

1.1. Discovery Procedure Overview

 DHCP ([RFC2131], [RFC3315]) is a commonly used mechanism for
 providing bootstrap configuration information that allows a Device to
 operate in a specific network environment.  The DHCP information is
 largely static, consisting of configuration information that does not
 change over the period that the Device is attached to the network.
 Physical location information might change over this time; however,
 the address of the LIS does not.  Thus, DHCP is suitable for
 configuring a Device with the address of a LIS.
 This document defines a DHCP option that produces a domain name that
 identifies the local access network in Section 3.
 Section 4 describes a method that uses URI-enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR)
 [RFC4848], a Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS) profile that
 produces a URI for the LIS.  The input to this process is provided by
 the DHCP option.
 For the LIS discovery DDDS application, an Application Service tag
 "LIS" and an Application Protocol tag "HELD" have been created and
 registered with the IANA.  Based on the domain name, this U-NAPTR
 application uses the two tags to determine a URI for a LIS that
 supports the HELD protocol.

1.2. 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 [RFC2119].
 This document also uses the term "Device" to refer to an end host or
 client consistent with its use in HELD.  In HELD and RFC 3693
 [RFC3693] parlance, the Device is also the Target.
 The term "access network" refers to the network to which a Device
 connects for Internet access.  The "access network provider" is the
 entity that operates the access network.  This is consistent with the
 definition in [RFC5687], which combines the Internet Access Provider

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 (IAP) and Internet Service Provider (ISP).  The access network
 provider is responsible for allocating the Device a public IP address
 and for directly or indirectly providing a LIS service.

2. LIS Discovery Procedure

 A Device that has multiple network interfaces could potentially be
 served by a different access network on each interface, each with a
 different LIS.  The Device SHOULD attempt to discover the LIS
 applicable to each network interface, stopping when a LIS is
 successfully discovered on any interface.
 The LIS discovery procedure follows this process:
 1.  Acquire the access network domain name (Section 3).
     This process might be repeated for each of the network interfaces
     on the Device.  Domain names acquired from other sources might
     also be added.
 2.  Apply U-NAPTR resolution (Section 4) to discover a LIS URI.
     The U-NAPTR process is applied using each of the domain names as
     input.
 3.  Verify that the LIS is able to provide location information.
     The first URI that results in a successful response from the LIS
     is used.
 A Device MUST support discovery using the access network domain name
 DHCP option (Section 3) as input to U-NAPTR resolution (Section 4).
 If this option is not available, DHCPv4 option 15 [RFC2132] is used.
 Other domain names MAY be used, as described in Section 3.4.
 A Device that discovers a LIS URI MUST attempt to verify that the LIS
 is able to provide location information.  For the HELD protocol, the
 Device verifies the URI by making a location request to the LIS.  Any
 HTTP 200 response containing a HELD response signifies success.  This
 includes HELD error responses, with the exception of the
 "notLocatable" error.
 If -- at any time -- the LIS responds to a request with the
 "notLocatable" error code (see Section 4.3.2 of [RFC5985]), the
 Device MUST continue or restart the discovery process.  A Device
 SHOULD NOT make further requests to a LIS that provides a
 "notLocatable" error until its network attachment changes, or it
 discovers the LIS on an alternative network interface.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 Static configuration of a domain name or a LIS URI MAY be used.  Note
 that if a Device has moved from its customary location, static
 configuration might indicate a LIS that is unable to provide accurate
 location information.
 The product of the LIS discovery process for HELD is an HTTPS or HTTP
 URI.  Nothing distinguishes this URI from other URIs with the same
 scheme, aside from the fact that it is the product of this process.
 Only URIs produced by the discovery process can be used for location
 configuration using HELD.
 The overall discovery process is summarized in Figure 1.
  1. ———-

( Start )

  1. —-+—–

|←————————————-+

          |                                       |
          V                                       |
    ------^-------            ------^------       |
   /              \          /      1.     \      |
  < Next interface >-------><  Get domain   >-----+
   \              / Y  ^     \             /  N
    ------v-------     |      ------v------
          | N          |            | Y
          |            |            V
          |            |      ------^------
          |            |     /      2.     \
          |            +----<    Get URI    ><----+
          |               N  \             /      |
          |                   ------v------       |
          |                         | Y           |
          |                         V             |
          |                   ------^------       |
          |                  /      3.     \      |
          |                 <   Check URI   >-----+
          |                  \             /  N
          |                   ------v------
          |                         | Y
          V                         V
     -----------               -----------
    (  Failure  )             (  Success  )
     -----------               -----------
                   Figure 1: LIS Discovery Flowchart

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

2.1. Residential Gateways

 The options available in residential gateways will affect the success
 of this algorithm in residential network scenarios.  A fixed wireline
 scenario is described in more detail in [RFC5687], Section 3.1.  In
 this fixed wireline environment, an intervening residential gateway
 exists between the Device and the access network.  If the residential
 gateway does not provide the appropriate information to the Devices
 it serves, those Devices are unable to discover a LIS.
 Support of this specification by residential gateways ensures that
 the Devices they serve are able to acquire location information.  In
 many cases, the residential gateway configures the Devices it serves
 using DHCP.  A residential gateway is able to use DHCP to assist
 Devices in gaining access to their location information.  This can be
 accomplished by providing an access network domain name DHCP option
 suitable for LIS discovery, or by acting as a LIS directly.  To
 actively assist Devices, a residential gateway can either:
 o  acquire an access network domain name from the access network
    provider (possibly using DHCP) and pass the resulting value to
    Devices; or
 o  discover a LIS on its external interface, then provide Devices
    with the domain name that was used to successfully discover the
    LIS; or
 o  explicitly include configuration that refers to a particular LIS;
    or
 o  act as a LIS and directly provide location information to the
    Devices it serves, including providing a means to discover this
    service.
 As with Devices, configuration of a specific domain name or location
 information is only accurate as long as the residential gateway does
 not move.  If a residential gateway that relies on configuration
 rather than automatic discovery is moved, the Devices it serves could
 be provided with inaccurate information.  Devices could be led to
 discover a LIS that is unable to provide accurate location
 information, or -- if location is configured on the residential
 gateway -- the residential gateway could provide incorrect location
 information.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

2.2. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)

 A Device MUST NOT attempt LIS discovery over a VPN network interface
 until it has attempted and failed to perform discovery on all other
 non-VPN interfaces.  A Device MAY perform discovery over a VPN
 network interface if it has first attempted discovery on non-VPN
 interfaces, but a LIS discovered in this way is unlikely to have the
 information necessary to determine an accurate location.
 Not all interfaces connected to a VPN can be detected by Devices or
 the software running on them.  In these cases, it might be that a LIS
 on the remote side of a VPN is inadvertently discovered.  A LIS
 provides a "notLocatable" error code in response to a request that it
 is unable to fulfill (see [RFC5985], Section 6.3).  This ensures that
 even if a Device discovers a LIS over the VPN, it does not rely on a
 LIS that is unable to provide accurate location information.

3. Determining a Domain Name

 DHCP provides a direct means for the access network provider to
 configure a Device.  The access network domain name option identifies
 a domain name that is suitable for service discovery within the
 access network.  This domain name is used as input to the U-NAPTR
 resolution process for LIS discovery.
 The domain name provided in this option is one owned by the access
 network operator.  This domain name is intended for use in
 discovering services within the access network.
 This document registers a DHCP option for the access network domain
 name for both IPv4 and IPv6.

3.1. Domain Name Encoding

 This section describes the encoding of the domain name used in the
 DHCPv4 option defined in Section 3.2 and also used in the DHCPv6
 option defined in Section 3.3.
 The domain name is encoded according to Section 3.1 of [RFC1035].
 Each label is represented as a one-octet length field followed by
 that number of octets.  Since every domain name ends with the null
 label of the root, a domain name is terminated by a length byte of
 zero.  The high-order two bits of every length octet MUST be zero,
 and the remaining six bits of the length field limit the label to 63
 octets or less.  To simplify implementations, the total length of a
 domain name (i.e., label octets and label length octets) is
 restricted to 255 octets or less.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 For example, the domain "example.com." is encoded in 13 octets as:
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    | 7 | e | x | a | m | p | l | e | 3 | c | o | m | 0 |
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 Note that the length field in either option represents the length of
 the entire domain name encoding, whereas the length fields in the
 domain name encoding is the length of a single domain name label.

3.2. Access Network Domain Name DHCPv4 Option

 This section defines a DHCP for IPv4 (DHCPv4) option for the domain
 name associated with the access network.
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Code      |   Length      |  Access Network Domain Name   .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .            Access Network Domain Name (cont.)                 .
 .                              ...                              .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          Figure 2: Access Network Domain Name DHCPv4 Option
 option-code:  OPTION_V4_ACCESS_DOMAIN (213).
 option-length:  The length of the entire access network domain name
    option in octets.
 option-value:  The domain name associated with the access network,
    encoded as described in Section 3.1.
 A DHCPv4 client MAY request an access network domain name option in a
 Parameter Request List option, as described in [RFC2131].
 This option contains a single domain name and, as such, MUST contain
 precisely one root label.

3.3. Access Network Domain Name DHCPv6 Option

 This section defines a DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for the domain
 name associated with the access network.  The DHCPv6 option for this
 parameter is similarly formatted to the DHCPv4 option.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    OPTION_V6_ACCESS_DOMAIN    |           Length              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                  Access Network Domain Name                   .
 .                              ...                              .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          Figure 3: DHCPv6 Access Network Domain Name Option
 option-code:  OPTION_V6_ACCESS_DOMAIN (57).
 option-length:  The length of the entire access network domain name
    option in octets.
 option-value:  The domain name associated with the access network,
    encoded as described in Section 3.1.
 A DHCPv6 client MAY request an access network domain name option in
 an Options Request Option (ORO), as described in [RFC3315].
 This option contains a single domain name and, as such, MUST contain
 precisely one root label.

3.4. Alternative Domain Names

 The U-NAPTR resolution method described requires a domain name as
 input.  The access network domain name DHCP options (Sections 3.2 and
 3.3) are one source of this domain name.
 If a Device knows one or more alternative domain names that might be
 used for discovery, it MAY repeat the U-NAPTR process using those
 domain names as input.  For instance, static configuration of a
 Device might be used to provide a Device with a domain name.
 DHCPv4 option 15 [RFC2132] provides an indication of the domain name
 that a host uses when resolving hostnames in DNS.  This option is
 used when the DHCPv4 access domain name is not available.
 DHCPv4 option 15 might not be suitable for some network deployments.
 For instance, a global enterprise could operate multiple sites, with
 Devices at all sites using the same value for option 15.  In this
 type of deployment, it might be desirable to discover a LIS local to
 a site.  The access domain name option can be given a different value
 at each site to enable discovery of a LIS at that site.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 Alternative domain names MUST NOT be used unless the access network
 domain name option is unsuccessful or where external information
 indicates that a particular domain name is to be used.
 Other domain names might be provided by a DHCP server (for example,
 [RFC4702] for DHCPv4, [RFC4704] for DHCPv6).  However, these domain
 names could be provided without considering their use for LIS
 discovery; therefore, it is not likely that these other domain names
 contain useful values.

4. U-NAPTR Resolution of a LIS URI

 U-NAPTR [RFC4848] resolution for a LIS takes a domain name as input
 and produces a URI that identifies the LIS.  This process also
 requires an Application Service tag and an Application Protocol tag,
 which differentiate LIS-related NAPTR records from other records for
 that domain.
 Section 6.2 defines an Application Service tag of "LIS", which is
 used to identify the location service for a given domain.  The
 Application Protocol tag "HELD", defined in Section 6.3, is used to
 identify a LIS that understands the HELD protocol [RFC5985].
 The NAPTR records in the following example demonstrate the use of the
 Application Service and Protocol tags.  Iterative NAPTR resolution is
 used to delegate responsibility for the LIS service from
 "zonea.example.net." and "zoneb.example.net." to
 "outsource.example.com.".

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

    zonea.example.net.
    ;;       order pref flags
    IN NAPTR 100   10   ""  "LIS:HELD" (          ; service
        ""                                        ; regex
        outsource.example.com.                    ; replacement
        )
    zoneb.example.net.
    ;;       order pref flags
    IN NAPTR 100   10   ""  "LIS:HELD" (          ; service
        ""                                        ; regex
        outsource.example.com.                    ; replacement
        )
    outsource.example.com.
    ;;       order pref flags
    IN NAPTR 100   10   "u"  "LIS:HELD" (         ; service
        "!.*!https://lis.example.org:4802/?c=ex!" ; regex
        .                                         ; replacement
        )
            Figure 4: Sample LIS:HELD Service NAPTR Records
 Details for the "LIS" Application Service tag and the "HELD"
 Application Protocol tag are included in Section 6.
 U-NAPTR resolution might produce multiple results from each iteration
 of the algorithm.  Order and preference values in the NAPTR record
 determine which value is chosen.  A Device MAY attempt to use
 alternative choices if the first choice is not successful.  However,
 if a request to the resulting URI produces a HELD "notLocatable"
 response, or equivalent, the Device SHOULD NOT attempt to use any
 alternative choices from the same domain name.
 An HTTPS LIS URI that is a product of U-NAPTR MUST be authenticated
 using the domain name method described in Section 3.1 of RFC 2818
 [RFC2818].  The domain name that is used in this authentication is
 the one extracted from the URI, not the one that was input to the
 U-NAPTR resolution process.

5. Security Considerations

 The address of a LIS is usually well-known within an access network;
 therefore, interception of messages does not introduce any specific
 concerns.
 The primary attack against the methods described in this document is
 one that would lead to impersonation of a LIS.  The LIS is
 responsible for providing location information, and this information
 is critical to a number of network services; furthermore, a Device

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 does not necessarily have a prior relationship with a LIS.  Several
 methods are described here that can limit the probability of, or
 provide some protection against, such an attack.  These methods MUST
 be applied unless similar protections are in place, or in cases --
 such as an emergency -- where location information of dubious origin
 is arguably better than none at all.
 An attacker could attempt to compromise LIS discovery at any of three
 stages:
 1.  providing a falsified domain name to be used as input to U-NAPTR
 2.  altering the DNS records used in U-NAPTR resolution
 3.  impersonating the LIS
 The domain name that used to authenticate the LIS is the domain name
 input to the U-NAPTR process, not the output of that process
 [RFC3958], [RFC4848].  As a result, the results of DNS queries do not
 need integrity protection.
 An HTTPS URI is authenticated using the method described in Section
 3.1 of [RFC2818].  HTTP client implementations frequently do not
 provide a means to authenticate based on a domain name other than the
 one indicated in the request URI, namely the U-NAPTR output.  To
 avoid having to authenticate the LIS with a domain name that is
 different from the one used to identify it, a client MAY choose to
 reject URIs that contain a domain name that is different to the
 U-NAPTR input.  To support endpoints that enforce the above
 restriction on URIs, network administrators SHOULD ensure that the
 domain name in the DHCP option is the same as the one contained in
 the resulting URI.
 Authentication of a LIS relies on the integrity of the domain name
 acquired from DHCP.  An attacker that is able to falsify a domain
 name circumvents the protections provided.  To ensure that the access
 network domain name DHCP option can be relied upon, preventing DHCP
 messages from being modified or spoofed by attackers is necessary.
 Physical- or link-layer security are commonly used to reduce the
 possibility of such an attack within an access network.  DHCP
 authentication [RFC3118] might also provide a degree of protection
 against modification or spoofing.
 A LIS that is identified by an HTTP URI cannot be authenticated.  Use
 of unsecured HTTP also does not meet requirements in HELD for
 confidentiality and integrity.  If an HTTP URI is the product of LIS

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 discovery, this leaves Devices vulnerable to several attacks.  Lower-
 layer protections, such as Layer 2 traffic separation might be used
 to provide some guarantees.

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. Registration of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Option Codes

 The IANA has assigned an option code of 213 for the DHCPv4 option for
 an access network domain name option, as described in Section 3.2 of
 this document.
 The IANA has assigned an option code of 57 for the DHCPv6 option for
 an access network domain name option, as described in Section 3.3 of
 this document.

6.2. Registration of a Location Server Application Service Tag

 This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Service tag
 for LIS, as mandated by [RFC3958].
 Application Service Tag:  LIS
 Intended usage:  Identifies a service that provides a Device with its
    location information.
 Defining publication:  RFC 5986
 Related publications:  HELD [RFC5985]
 Contact information:  The authors of this document
 Author/Change controller:  The IESG

6.3. Registration of a Location Server Application Protocol Tag for

    HELD
 This section registers a new S-NAPTR/U-NAPTR Application Protocol tag
 for the HELD protocol [RFC5985], as mandated by [RFC3958].
 Application Protocol Tag:  HELD
 Intended Usage:  Identifies the HELD protocol.
 Applicable Service Tag(s):  LIS
 Terminal NAPTR Record Type(s):  U

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 Defining Publication:  RFC 5986
 Related Publications:  HELD [RFC5985]
 Contact Information:  The authors of this document
 Author/Change Controller:  The IESG

7. Acknowledgements

 This document uses a mechanism that is largely identical to that in
 [RFC5222] and [RFC5223].  The authors would like to thank Leslie
 Daigle for her work on U-NAPTR; Peter Koch for feedback on how not to
 use DNS for discovery; Andy Newton for constructive suggestions with
 regards to document direction; Richard Barnes, Joe Salowey, Barbara
 Stark, and Hannes Tschofenig for input and reviews; and Dean Willis
 for constructive feedback.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
            specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
            RFC 2131, March 1997.
 [RFC2132]  Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
            Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
 [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.
 [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
 [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
            and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
            IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
 [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
            Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
            RFC 4033, March 2005.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

 [RFC4702]  Stapp, M., Volz, B., and Y. Rekhter, "The Dynamic Host
            Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Client Fully Qualified
            Domain Name (FQDN) Option", RFC 4702, October 2006.
 [RFC4704]  Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
            IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
            Option", RFC 4704, October 2006.
 [RFC4848]  Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
            Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
            (DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
 [RFC5985]  Barnes, M., Ed., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
            RFC 5985, September 2010.

8.2. Informative References

 [RFC3118]  Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP
            Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001.
 [RFC3693]  Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and
            J. Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 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.
 [RFC5222]  Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
            Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
            Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008.
 [RFC5223]  Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Discovering
            Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the
            Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)", RFC 5223,
            August 2008.
 [RFC5687]  Tschofenig, H. and H. Schulzrinne, "GEOPRIV Layer 7
            Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and
            Requirements", RFC 5687, March 2010.
 [RFC5808]  Marshall, R., "Requirements for a Location-by-Reference
            Mechanism", RFC 5808, May 2010.

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5986 LIS Discovery September 2010

Authors' Addresses

 Martin Thomson
 Andrew Corporation
 Andrew Building (39)
 Wollongong University Campus
 Northfields Avenue
 Wollongong, NSW  2522
 AU
 Phone: +61 2 4221 2915
 EMail: martin.thomson@andrew.com
 James Winterbottom
 Andrew Corporation
 Andrew Building (39)
 Wollongong University Campus
 Northfields Avenue
 Wollongong, NSW  2522
 AU
 Phone: +61 2 4221 2938
 EMail: james.winterbottom@andrew.com

Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 16]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5986.txt · Last modified: 2010/09/07 15:24 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki