GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol; Problem Statement and Requirements draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne IETF 68, Prague, March 2007

Status: Many WGLC Comments  Areas of Comments:  Editorial  Modify Document Structure  New requirements

ToC  1. Introduction 2. Terminology 3. Scenarios 3.1. Fixed Wired Environment 3.2. Moving Network 3.3. Wireless Access 4. Discovery of the Location Information Server 5. Identifier for Location Determination 6. Virtual Private Network (VPN) Considerations 6.1. VPN Tunneled Internet Traffic 6.2. VPN Client and End Point Physically Co-Located 6.3. VPN Client and End Point Physically Separated 7. Location-by-Reference and Location Subscriptions 8. Preventing Faked Location based DoS Attacks 8.1. Security Threat 8.2. Discussion about Countermeasures 9. Requirements 10. Security Considerations Capabilities of the Adversary Threats Requirements 11. IANA Considerations 12. Contributors 13. Acknowledgements 14. References Delete? Moved into a separate document

Terminology Section  We use the term "Location Information Server (LIS)“ but we don’t define it.  We discussed this aspect in Dec without a result.  Should we fall back to RFC3693's "Location Server (LS)"?

Scenario Section  Minor update based on comments. Clarifications mostly.  Scenarios are not meant to be exhaustive.

Requirements Section  Add a reference with regard to the discovery procedure.  New requirements:  LIS-to-LIS & On-behalf-of Both have the characteristic that they allow the location request to be able to support other (typically access technology dependent) forms of client identifier than the IP address. Input / Output parameters are not known.  Need for a Quality of Service response time parameter  Not sure whether they are LCP specific or should be moved to the Location-by-Reference requirements document.

Location-by-Reference  Move requirements to draft-marshall-geopriv-lbyr-requirements- 00.txt ?  This would effect potentially affect the following text:  The reference MUST be valid for a limited amount of time.  The reference MUST be hard to guess, i.e., it MUST contain a cryptographically random component.  The reference MUST NOT contain any information that identifies the user, device or address of record  The Location Recipient MUST be able to resolve the reference more than once (i.e., there is no implicit limit on the number of dereferencing actions).  Possessing a reference to location information allows a Location Recipient to repeatedly obtain the latest information about the Target with the same granularity.  The Target MUST be able to resolve the reference itself.

Operational Considerations  Dan Romascanu: “ The Internet-Draft does not include any operations or manageability considerations or requirements. At a minimum I would suggest that consideration is given to whether there is need for any prior configuration of hosts or nodes or LISs involved in the protocol, if yes how this will be done, what is the level of traffic this protocol is supposed to generate in a network, are there any dependencies or impact on other protocols, any means of monitoring the status of the entities running the protocol and any faults specific to this protocol to be reported to an operator. “  Has never been raised before. What should we do?