Network WG James Polk Internet-Draft Marc Linsner Expires: April 19, 2010 Cisco Systems Intended Status: Standards Track (PS) October 19, 2009 IANA Registering Geopriv Interior Locations in a TLV Format draft-polk-geopriv-int-relative-in-tlv-00 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 April 19, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract This document IANA registers XML elements of interior locations in a common TLV format. Polk Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IANA Reg. elements in TLV October 2009 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 [RFC 2119]. 1. Introduction The Presence Information Data Format - Location Object (PIDF-LO) [RFC4119], defines an XML scheme for geolocation in civic form. Building interior elements were created and defined in [ID-GEO-INT], within the element. This element was extended in [ID-INT-EXT] which identifies 17 internal identifiers providing relative position information, including shape boundary information. One specific goal included in this work is to create a binary representation of the civic location elements, analogous to the TLV format utilized in RFC4776 [RFC4776] and RFC5139 [RFC5139], from PIDF-LO for use in non-XML protocols. This latter part was motivated by the IEEE having formally requested, via a proper liaison seen (here [IEEE-LIAISON]), the Internet Engineering Task Force define a binary payload for communicating interior location XML elements of a Presence Information Data Format - Location Object (PIDF-LO), defined in RFC 4119 [RFC4119]. This document IANA registers these interior location XML elements in a common TLV (Type/Length/Value) format which originated in [ID-INT-EXT]. The IETF is a logical place to maintain this definition, as the IETF is the creator of the XML namespaces that defined the civic location elements of PIDF-LO, as well as being the creator and owner of the civic datum in TLV format [RFC4776]. 2. Interior Location Types The Interior Location Types (LocType) defined in [ID-INT-EXT] work in conjunction with the TLV format defined in RFC4776 and RFC5139. To accommodate possible future needs, the CAtype field utilized in [RFC4776 & RFC5139] sequences to value 39. The LocType defined here start at value 201, under the idea that if these types ever get merged with the CAtype table, having no collisions from the start would be a good thing. We call the fields 'LocTypes' because they are not civic addressing in the traditional sense. For all intents and purposes, CAtypes MUST be treated as if they were LocTypes, and visa-versa. The classic TLV format is shown here, in Figure 1. Polk Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IANA Reg. elements in TLV October 2009 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Loctype | Loclength | Locvalue ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1. Classic TLV format for Location For location types of 'point', 'circle', 'arcband', and 'polygon', no value is expected, and is ignored; as these TLVs are only for identifying the shape of the relative location position. The range of LocTypes for interior locations is limited from 201 to 254. +----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+ | Field | LocType | Description | Example | +----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+ | REF | 201 | Reference point |'Front | | | | or Starting pt. | Door' | | | | | | | POINT | 202 | Point || | | | | | | CIRCLE | 203 | Circle || | | | | | | ARCBAND | 204 | Arcband || | | | | | | POLYGON | 205 | Polygon || | | | | | | SHAPE-OFFSET-X | 206 | Shape Offset X | '+10' | | | | | | | SHAPE-OFFSET-Y | 207 | Shape Offset X | '-20' | | | | | | | SHAPE-OFFSET-Z | 208 | Shape Offset X | '+2' | | | | | | | RAD | 209 | Radius of circle| '+4' | | | | | | | INRAD | 210 | Inner radius of | '+8' | | | | an arcband | | | | | | | | OUTRAD | 211 | Outer radius of | '+18' | | | | an arcband | | | | | | | | STANGLE | 212 | Starting angle | 329 | | | | of an arcband | | | | | | | | OPEN | 213 | Opening angle | 82 | | | | of an arcband | | | | | | | | NUMPGONPTS | 214 | Number of points| '5' | Polk Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IANA Reg. elements in TLV October 2009 | | | in a polygon | | | | | | | | SHAPE-CENTER-X | 215 |Geographic center| +10 | | | | of a polygon | | | | | | | | SHAPE-CENTER-X | 216 |Geographic center| -12.2 | | | | of a polygon | | | | | | | | SHAPE-CENTER-X | 217 |Geographic center| +0.4 | | | | of a polygon | | +----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+ For positive Locvalues, the character '+' is not mandatory, but is RECOMMENDED for consistent readability. The above table shows a ' single quote character; this is not expected to be present in on the wire. 3. Security considerations There are no security considerations outside of those explored in RFC 4776 and RFC 5139. 4. IANA considerations This document IANA registers the following values in a new 'Interior Location Types' (LocTypes) table, with this document as the reference. +----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+-----------+ | Field | LocType | Description | Example | Reference | +----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+-----------+ | REF | 201 | Reference point |'Front | this doc | | | | or Starting pt. | Door' | | | | | | | | | POINT | 202 | Point || this doc | | | | | | | | CIRCLE | 203 | Circle || this doc | | | | | | | | ARCBAND | 204 | Arcband || this doc | | | | | | | | POLYGON | 205 | Polygon || this doc | | | | | | | | SHAPE-OFFSET-X | 206 | Shape Offset X | '+10' | this doc | | | | | | | | SHAPE-OFFSET-Y | 207 | Shape Offset X | '-20' | this doc | | | | | | | | SHAPE-OFFSET-Z | 208 | Shape Offset X | '+2' | this doc | | | | | | | | RAD | 209 | Radius of circle| '+4' | this doc | | | | | | | Polk Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IANA Reg. elements in TLV October 2009 | INRAD | 210 | Inner radius of | '+8' | this doc | | | | an arcband | | | | | | | | | | OUTRAD | 211 | Outer radius of | '+18' | this doc | | | | an arcband | | | | | | | | | | STANGLE | 212 | Starting angle | 329 | this doc | | | | of an arcband | | | | | | | | | | OPEN | 213 | Opening angle | 82 | this doc | | | | of an arcband | | | | | | | | | | NUMPGONPTS | 214 | Number of points| '5' | this doc | | | | in a polygon | | | | | | | | | | SHAPE-CENTER-X | 215 |Geographic center| +10 | this doc | | | | of a polygon | | | | | | | | | | SHAPE-CENTER-X | 216 |Geographic center| -12.2 | this doc | | | | of a polygon | | | | | | | | | | SHAPE-CENTER-X | 217 |Geographic center| +0.4 | this doc | | | | of a polygon | | | +----------------+---------+-----------------+---------+-----------+ 7. Acknowledgments To Allan Thomson, Dorothy Stanley, Stephen McCann, Gabor Bajko for their contributions into this effort. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997 [RFC4119] J. Peterson, "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format", RFC 4119, December 2005 [ID-GEO-INT] B. Rosen, " Interior Location in PIDF-LO ", "work in progress", July 2009 [RFC4776] H. Schulzrinne, " Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information ", RFC 4776, November 2006 [RFC5139] M. Thomson, J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location Format for Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008 Polk Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IANA Reg. elements in TLV October 2009 [ID-INT-EXT] D. Stanley, S. McCann, G. Bajko, A. Thomson, "Interior Location Extensions", "work in progress", October 2009 8.2. Informative References [IEEE-LIAISON] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/ or https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file704.doc Authors' Addresses James Polk 3913 Treemont Circle Colleyville, Texas, USA +1.817.271.3552 mailto: jmpolk@cisco.com Marc Linsner Cisco Systems, Inc. Marco Island, Florida, USA Email: mlinsner@cisco.com Polk Expires April 19, 2010 [Page 6]