- Home
- RFCs by Subject
- applications
- geolocation
geolocation
Geolocation: formats, privacy and conveyance of location information
Within this page
geolocation subjects:
- HELD5 RFCs
geolocation RFCs (42)
RFC 9632: Finding and Using Geofeed Data
Proposed Standard- R. Bush
- M. Candela
- W. Kumari
- R. Housley
- August 2024
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) inetnum: class to refer specifically to geofeed comma-separated values (CSV) data files and describes an optional scheme that uses the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to authenticate the geofeed data files. This document obsoletes RFC 9092.
Abstract
This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) inetnum: class to refer specifically to geofeed comma-separated values (CSV) data files and describes an optional scheme that uses the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to authenticate the geofeed data files. This document obsoletes RFC 9092.
RFC 9179: A YANG Grouping for Geographic Locations
Proposed Standard- C. Hopps
- February 2022
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document defines a generic geographical location YANG grouping. The geographical location grouping is intended to be used in YANG data models for specifying a location on or in reference to Earth or any other astronomical object.
Abstract
This document defines a generic geographical location YANG grouping. The geographical location grouping is intended to be used in YANG data models for specifying a location on or in reference to Earth or any other astronomical object.
RFC 9036: Changing the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles Registry Policy
Proposed Standard- R. Gellens
- June 2021
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry established by RFC 5222 from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values.
Abstract
This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry established by RFC 5222 from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values.
RFC 8917: The LoST-Validation Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag
Proposed Standard- R. Gellens
- B. Rosen
- October 2020
- IETF publication
- General Area
Abstract
This document adds the 'LoST-Validation' service tag to the Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag IANA registry. This tag can appear in a Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) Domain Name System (DNS) record to assist clients of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol in identifying LoST servers designated for location validation. This tag and the information about its use update RFC 5222, which enables the explicit discovery of a server that supports location validation.
Abstract
This document adds the 'LoST-Validation' service tag to the Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag IANA registry. This tag can appear in a Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) Domain Name System (DNS) record to assist clients of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol in identifying LoST servers designated for location validation. This tag and the information about its use update RFC 5222, which enables the explicit discovery of a server that supports location validation.
RFC 8805: A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds
Informational- E. Kline
- K. Duleba
- Z. Szamonek
- S. Moser
- W. Kumari
- August 2020
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document records a format whereby a network operator can publish a mapping of IP address prefixes to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a "geolocation feed". Interested parties can poll and parse these feeds to update or merge with other geolocation data sources and procedures. This format intentionally only allows specifying coarse-level location.
Some technical organizations operating networks that move from one conference location to the next have already experimentally published small geolocation feeds.
This document describes a currently deployed format. At least one consumer (Google) has incorporated these feeds into a geolocation data pipeline, and a significant number of ISPs are using it to inform them where their prefixes should be geolocated.
Abstract
This document records a format whereby a network operator can publish a mapping of IP address prefixes to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a "geolocation feed". Interested parties can poll and parse these feeds to update or merge with other geolocation data sources and procedures. This format intentionally only allows specifying coarse-level location.
Some technical organizations operating networks that move from one conference location to the next have already experimentally published small geolocation feeds.
This document describes a currently deployed format. At least one consumer (Google) has incorporated these feeds into a geolocation data pipeline, and a significant number of ISPs are using it to inform them where their prefixes should be geolocated.
RFC 8787: Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header Field
Proposed Standard- J. Winterbottom
- R. Jesske
- B. Chatras
- A. Hutton
- May 2020
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
There are some circumstances where a Geolocation header field may contain more than one locationValue. Knowing the identity of the node adding the locationValue allows the recipient more freedom in selecting the value to look at first rather than relying solely on the order of the locationValues. This document defines the "loc-src" parameter so that the entity adding the locationValue to the Geolocation header field can identify itself using its hostname. This document updates RFC 6442.
Abstract
There are some circumstances where a Geolocation header field may contain more than one locationValue. Knowing the identity of the node adding the locationValue allows the recipient more freedom in selecting the value to look at first rather than relying solely on the order of the locationValues. This document defines the "loc-src" parameter so that the entity adding the locationValue to the Geolocation header field can identify itself using its hostname. This document updates RFC 6442.
RFC 7871: Client Subnet in DNS Queries
Informational- C. Contavalli
- W. van der Gaast
- D. Lawrence
- W. Kumari
- May 2016
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes an Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) option that is in active use to carry information about the network that originated a DNS query and the network for which the subsequent response can be cached. Since it has some known operational and privacy shortcomings, a revision will be worked through the IETF for improvement.
Abstract
This document describes an Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) option that is in active use to carry information about the network that originated a DNS query and the network for which the subsequent response can be cached. Since it has some known operational and privacy shortcomings, a revision will be worked through the IETF for improvement.
RFC 7459: Representation of Uncertainty and Confidence in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- J. Winterbottom
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines key concepts of uncertainty and confidence as they pertain to location information. Methods for the manipulation of location estimates that include uncertainty information are outlined.
This document normatively updates the definition of location information representations defined in RFCs 4119 and 5491. It also deprecates related terminology defined in RFC 3693.
Abstract
This document defines key concepts of uncertainty and confidence as they pertain to location information. Methods for the manipulation of location estimates that include uncertainty information are outlined.
This document normatively updates the definition of location information representations defined in RFCs 4119 and 5491. It also deprecates related terminology defined in RFC 3693.
RFC 7216: Location Information Server (LIS) Discovery Using IP Addresses and Reverse DNS
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- R. Bellis
- April 2014
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
The residential gateway is a device that has become an integral part of home networking equipment. Discovering a Location Information Server (LIS) is a necessary part of acquiring location information for location-based services. However, discovering a LIS when a residential gateway is present poses a configuration challenge, requiring a method that is able to work around the obstacle presented by the gateway.
This document describes a solution to this problem. The solution provides alternative domain names as input to the LIS discovery process based on the network addresses assigned to a Device.
Abstract
The residential gateway is a device that has become an integral part of home networking equipment. Discovering a Location Information Server (LIS) is a necessary part of acquiring location information for location-based services. However, discovering a LIS when a residential gateway is present poses a configuration challenge, requiring a method that is able to work around the obstacle presented by the gateway.
This document describes a solution to this problem. The solution provides alternative domain names as input to the LIS discovery process based on the network addresses assigned to a Device.
RFC 7199: Location Configuration Extensions for Policy Management
Proposed Standard- R. Barnes
- M. Thomson
- J. Winterbottom
- H. Tschofenig
- April 2014
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
Current location configuration protocols are capable of provisioning an Internet host with a location URI that refers to the host's location. These protocols lack a mechanism for the target host to inspect or set the privacy rules that are applied to the URIs they distribute. This document extends the current location configuration protocols to provide hosts with a reference to the rules that are applied to a URI so that the host can view or set these rules.
Abstract
Current location configuration protocols are capable of provisioning an Internet host with a location URI that refers to the host's location. These protocols lack a mechanism for the target host to inspect or set the privacy rules that are applied to the URIs they distribute. This document extends the current location configuration protocols to provide hosts with a reference to the rules that are applied to a URI so that the host can view or set these rules.
RFC 7105: Using Device-Provided Location-Related Measurements in Location Configuration Protocols
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- J. Winterbottom
- January 2014
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document describes a protocol for a Device to provide location-related measurement data to a Location Information Server (LIS) within a request for location information. Location-related measurement information provides observations concerning properties related to the position of a Device; this information could be data about network attachment or about the physical environment. A LIS is able to use the location-related measurement data to improve the accuracy of the location estimate it provides to the Device. A basic set of location-related measurements are defined, including common modes of network attachment as well as assisted Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) parameters.
Abstract
This document describes a protocol for a Device to provide location-related measurement data to a Location Information Server (LIS) within a request for location information. Location-related measurement information provides observations concerning properties related to the position of a Device; this information could be data about network attachment or about the physical environment. A LIS is able to use the location-related measurement data to improve the accuracy of the location estimate it provides to the Device. A basic set of location-related measurements are defined, including common modes of network attachment as well as assisted Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) parameters.
RFC 7035: Relative Location Representation
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- B. Rosen
- D. Stanley
- G. Bajko
- A. Thomson
- October 2013
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) (RFC 4119) for the expression of location information that is defined relative to a reference point. The reference point may be expressed as a geodetic or civic location, and the relative offset may be one of several shapes. An alternative binary representation is described.
Optionally, a reference to a secondary document (such as a map image) can be included, along with the relationship of the map coordinate system to the reference/offset coordinate system, to allow display of the map with the reference point and the relative offset.
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) (RFC 4119) for the expression of location information that is defined relative to a reference point. The reference point may be expressed as a geodetic or civic location, and the relative offset may be one of several shapes. An alternative binary representation is described.
Optionally, a reference to a secondary document (such as a map image) can be included, along with the relationship of the map coordinate system to the reference/offset coordinate system, to allow display of the map with the reference point and the relative offset.
RFC 6848: Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
Proposed Standard- J. Winterbottom
- M. Thomson
- R. Barnes
- B. Rosen
- R. George
- January 2013
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backward- compatible mechanism for adding civic address elements to the Geopriv civic address format is described. A formal mechanism for handling unsupported extensions when translating between XML and DHCP civic address forms is defined for entities that need to perform this translation. Initial extensions for some new elements are also defined. The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol mechanism (defined in RFC 5222) that returns civic address element names used for validation of location information is clarified and is normatively updated to require a qualifying namespace identifier on each civic address element returned as part of the validation process. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backward- compatible mechanism for adding civic address elements to the Geopriv civic address format is described. A formal mechanism for handling unsupported extensions when translating between XML and DHCP civic address forms is defined for entities that need to perform this translation. Initial extensions for some new elements are also defined. The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol mechanism (defined in RFC 5222) that returns civic address element names used for validation of location information is clarified and is normatively updated to require a qualifying namespace identifier on each civic address element returned as part of the validation process. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6772: Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information
Proposed Standard- H. Schulzrinne
- H. Tschofenig
- J. Cuellar
- J. Polk
- J. Morris
- M. Thomson
- January 2013
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines an authorization policy language for controlling 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 in order to restrict access to data based on the current location of the Target.
Furthermore, this document defines two algorithms for reducing the granularity of returned location information. The first algorithm is defined for usage with civic location information, whereas the other one applies to geodetic location information. Both algorithms come with limitations. There are circumstances where the amount of location obfuscation provided is less than what is desired. These algorithms might not be appropriate for all application domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines an authorization policy language for controlling 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 in order to restrict access to data based on the current location of the Target.
Furthermore, this document defines two algorithms for reducing the granularity of returned location information. The first algorithm is defined for usage with civic location information, whereas the other one applies to geodetic location information. Both algorithms come with limitations. There are circumstances where the amount of location obfuscation provided is less than what is desired. These algorithms might not be appropriate for all application domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6739: Synchronizing Service Boundaries and <mapping> Elements Based on the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol
Experimental- H. Schulzrinne
- H. Tschofenig
- October 2012
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.
The <mapping> element in the LoST protocol specification encapsulates information about service boundaries and circumscribes the region within which all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a given service.
This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings between two nodes. This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative <mapping> elements between two entities. Exchanging cached <mapping> elements, i.e., non-authoritative elements, is possible but not envisioned. Even though the <mapping> element format is reused from the LoST specification, the mechanism in this document can be used without the LoST protocol. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services.
The <mapping> element in the LoST protocol specification encapsulates information about service boundaries and circumscribes the region within which all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a given service.
This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings between two nodes. This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative <mapping> elements between two entities. Exchanging cached <mapping> elements, i.e., non-authoritative elements, is possible but not envisioned. Even though the <mapping> element format is reused from the LoST specification, the mechanism in this document can be used without the LoST protocol. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 6447: Filtering Location Notifications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Proposed Standard- R. Mahy
- B. Rosen
- H. Tschofenig
- January 2012
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document describes filters that limit asynchronous location notifications to compelling events. These filters are designed as an extension to RFC 4661, an XML-based format for event notification filtering, and based on RFC 3856, the SIP presence event package. The resulting location information is conveyed in existing location formats wrapped in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes filters that limit asynchronous location notifications to compelling events. These filters are designed as an extension to RFC 4661, an XML-based format for event notification filtering, and based on RFC 3856, the SIP presence event package. The resulting location information is conveyed in existing location formats wrapped in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6451: Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol Extensions
Experimental- A. Forte
- H. Schulzrinne
- December 2011
- IETF publication
Abstract
An important class of location-based services answers the question, "What instances of this service are closest to me?" Examples include finding restaurants, gas stations, stores, automated teller machines, wireless access points (hot spots), or parking spaces. Currently, the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol only supports mapping locations to a single service based on service regions. This document describes an extension that allows queries of the type "N nearest", "within distance X", and "served by". This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
An important class of location-based services answers the question, "What instances of this service are closest to me?" Examples include finding restaurants, gas stations, stores, automated teller machines, wireless access points (hot spots), or parking spaces. Currently, the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol only supports mapping locations to a single service based on service regions. This document describes an extension that allows queries of the type "N nearest", "within distance X", and "served by". This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 6225: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information
Proposed Standard- J. Polk
- M. Linsner
- M. Thomson
- B. Aboba
- July 2011
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document specifies Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol options (both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) for the coordinate-based geographic location of the client. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude, with resolution or uncertainty indicators for each. Separate parameters indicate the reference datum for each of these values. This document obsoletes RFC 3825. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol options (both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) for the coordinate-based geographic location of the client. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude, with resolution or uncertainty indicators for each. Separate parameters indicate the reference datum for each of these values. This document obsoletes RFC 3825. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6280: BCP 160: An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications
Best Current Practice- R. Barnes
- M. Lepinski
- A. Cooper
- J. Morris
- H. Tschofenig
- H. Schulzrinne
- July 2011
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
Location-based services (such as navigation applications, emergency services, and management of equipment in the field) need geographic location information about Internet hosts, their users, and other related entities. These applications need to securely gather and transfer location information for location services, and at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This document describes an architecture for privacy-preserving location-based services in the Internet, focusing on authorization, security, and privacy requirements for the data formats and protocols used by these services. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
Abstract
Location-based services (such as navigation applications, emergency services, and management of equipment in the field) need geographic location information about Internet hosts, their users, and other related entities. These applications need to securely gather and transfer location information for location services, and at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This document describes an architecture for privacy-preserving location-based services in the Internet, focusing on authorization, security, and privacy requirements for the data formats and protocols used by these services. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
RFC 6197: Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service List Boundary Extension
Experimental- K. Wolf
- April 2011
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) maps service identifiers and location information to service contact URIs. If a LoST client wants to discover available services for a particular location, it will perform a <listServicesByLocation> query to the LoST server. However, the LoST server, in its response, does not provide context information; that is, it does not provide any additional information about the geographical region within which the returned list of services is considered valid. Therefore, this document defines a Service List Boundary that returns a local context along with the list of services returned, in order to assist the client in not missing a change in available services when moving. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) maps service identifiers and location information to service contact URIs. If a LoST client wants to discover available services for a particular location, it will perform a <listServicesByLocation> query to the LoST server. However, the LoST server, in its response, does not provide context information; that is, it does not provide any additional information about the geographical region within which the returned list of services is considered valid. Therefore, this document defines a Service List Boundary that returns a local context along with the list of services returned, in order to assist the client in not missing a change in available services when moving. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 5986: Discovering the Local Location Information Server (LIS)
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- J. Winterbottom
- September 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5964: Specifying Holes in Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service Boundaries
Proposed Standard- J. Winterbottom
- M. Thomson
- August 2010
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document describes how holes can be specified in geodetic service boundaries. One means of implementing a search solution in a service database, such as one might provide with a Location-to- Service Translation (LoST) server, is described. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes how holes can be specified in geodetic service boundaries. One means of implementing a search solution in a service database, such as one might provide with a Location-to- Service Translation (LoST) server, is described. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5870: A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic Locations ('geo' URI)
Proposed Standard- A. Mayrhofer
- C. Spanring
- June 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document specifies a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for geographic locations using the 'geo\' scheme name. A 'geo' URI identifies a physical location in a two- or three-dimensional coordinate reference system in a compact, simple, human-readable, and protocol-independent way. The default coordinate reference system used is the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for geographic locations using the 'geo\' scheme name. A 'geo' URI identifies a physical location in a two- or three-dimensional coordinate reference system in a compact, simple, human-readable, and protocol-independent way. The default coordinate reference system used is the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-84). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5808: Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism
Informational- R. Marshall
- May 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines terminology and provides requirements relating to the Location-by-Reference approach using a location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to handle location information within signaling and other Internet messaging. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document defines terminology and provides requirements relating to the Location-by-Reference approach using a location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) to handle location information within signaling and other Internet messaging. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5687: GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol: Problem Statement and Requirements
Informational- H. Tschofenig
- H. Schulzrinne
- March 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements, and captures design aspects for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 (L7) Location Configuration Protocol (LCP). This protocol aims to allow an end host to obtain location information, by value or by reference, from a Location Information Server (LIS) that is located in the access network. The obtained location information can then be used for a variety of different protocols and purposes. For example, it can be used as input to the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol or to convey location within the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to other entities. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document provides a problem statement, lists requirements, and captures design aspects for a GEOPRIV Layer 7 (L7) Location Configuration Protocol (LCP). This protocol aims to allow an end host to obtain location information, by value or by reference, from a Location Information Server (LIS) that is located in the access network. The obtained location information can then be used for a variety of different protocols and purposes. For example, it can be used as input to the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol or to convey location within the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to other entities. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5774: BCP 154: Considerations for Civic Addresses in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO): Guidelines and IANA Registry Definition
Best Current Practice- K. Wolf
- A. Mayrhofer
- March 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document provides a guideline for creating civic address considerations documents for individual countries, as required by RFC 4776. Furthermore, this document also creates an IANA Registry referring to such address considerations documents and registers such address considerations for Austria. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
Abstract
This document provides a guideline for creating civic address considerations documents for individual countries, as required by RFC 4776. Furthermore, this document also creates an IANA Registry referring to such address considerations documents and registers such address considerations for Austria. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
RFC 5606: Implications of 'retransmission-allowed' for SIP Location Conveyance
Informational- J. Peterson
- T. Hardie
- J. Morris
- August 2009
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the <retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information Data Format for Location Objects (PIDF-LO) in cases where PIDF-LO is conveyed by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It provides recommendations for how the SIP location conveyance mechanism should adapt to this ambiguity.
Documents standardizing the SIP location conveyance mechanisms will be Standards-Track documents processed according to the usual SIP process. This document is intended primarily to provide the SIP working group with a statement of the consensus of the GEOPRIV working group on this topic. It secondarily provides tutorial information on the problem space for the general reader. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document explores an ambiguity in the interpretation of the <retransmission-allowed> element of the Presence Information Data Format for Location Objects (PIDF-LO) in cases where PIDF-LO is conveyed by the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It provides recommendations for how the SIP location conveyance mechanism should adapt to this ambiguity.
Documents standardizing the SIP location conveyance mechanisms will be Standards-Track documents processed according to the usual SIP process. This document is intended primarily to provide the SIP working group with a statement of the consensus of the GEOPRIV working group on this topic. It secondarily provides tutorial information on the problem space for the general reader. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5580: Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and Diameter
Proposed Standard- H. Tschofenig
- F. Adrangi
- M. Jones
- A. Lior
- B. Aboba
- August 2009
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document describes procedures for conveying access-network ownership and location information based on civic and geospatial location formats in Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) and Diameter.
The distribution of location information is a privacy-sensitive task. Dealing with mechanisms to preserve the user's privacy is important and is addressed in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes procedures for conveying access-network ownership and location information based on civic and geospatial location formats in Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) and Diameter.
The distribution of location information is a privacy-sensitive task. Dealing with mechanisms to preserve the user's privacy is important and is addressed in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5491: GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations
Proposed Standard- J. Winterbottom
- M. Thomson
- H. Tschofenig
- March 2009
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
The Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) specification provides a flexible and versatile means to represent location information. There are, however, circumstances that arise when information needs to be constrained in how it is represented. In these circumstances, the range of options that need to be implemented are reduced. There is growing interest in being able to use location information contained in a PIDF-LO for routing applications. To allow successful interoperability between applications, location information needs to be normative and more tightly constrained than is currently specified in RFC 4119 (PIDF-LO). This document makes recommendations on how to constrain, represent, and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO. It further recommends a subset of Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 that is mandatory to implement by applications involved in location-based routing. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) specification provides a flexible and versatile means to represent location information. There are, however, circumstances that arise when information needs to be constrained in how it is represented. In these circumstances, the range of options that need to be implemented are reduced. There is growing interest in being able to use location information contained in a PIDF-LO for routing applications. To allow successful interoperability between applications, location information needs to be normative and more tightly constrained than is currently specified in RFC 4119 (PIDF-LO). This document makes recommendations on how to constrain, represent, and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO. It further recommends a subset of Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 that is mandatory to implement by applications involved in location-based routing. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5222: LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol
Proposed Standard- T. Hardie
- A. Newton
- H. Schulzrinne
- H. Tschofenig
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service contact URIs. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service contact URIs. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5223: Discovering Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Servers Using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
Proposed Standard- H. Schulzrinne
- J. Polk
- H. Tschofenig
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol describes an XML- based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geospatial or civic location information to service contact Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). LoST servers can be located anywhere, but a placement closer to the end host, e.g., in the access network, is desirable. In disaster situations with intermittent network connectivity, such a LoST server placement provides benefits regarding the resiliency of emergency service communication.
This document describes how a LoST client can discover a LoST server using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol describes an XML- based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geospatial or civic location information to service contact Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). LoST servers can be located anywhere, but a placement closer to the end host, e.g., in the access network, is desirable. In disaster situations with intermittent network connectivity, such a LoST server placement provides benefits regarding the resiliency of emergency service communication.
This document describes how a LoST client can discover a LoST server using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5139: Revised Civic Location Format for Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- J. Winterbottom
- February 2008
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic location. This format is designed for use with Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) documents and replaces the civic location format in RFC 4119. The format is based on the civic address definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on the civic types defined for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), and adds a hierarchy to address complex road identity schemes. The format also includes support for the xml:lang language tag and restricts the types of elements where appropriate. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic location. This format is designed for use with Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) documents and replaces the civic location format in RFC 4119. The format is based on the civic address definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on the civic types defined for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), and adds a hierarchy to address complex road identity schemes. The format also includes support for the xml:lang language tag and restricts the types of elements where appropriate. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4745: Common Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences
Proposed Standard- H. Schulzrinne
- H. Tschofenig
- J. Morris
- J. Cuellar
- J. Polk
- J. Rosenberg
- February 2007
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines a framework for authorization policies controlling access to application-specific data. This framework combines common location- and presence-specific authorization aspects. An XML schema specifies the language in which common policy rules are represented. The common policy framework can be extended to other application domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a framework for authorization policies controlling access to application-specific data. This framework combines common location- and presence-specific authorization aspects. An XML schema specifies the language in which common policy rules are represented. The common policy framework can be extended to other application domains. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4776: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information
Proposed Standard- H. Schulzrinne
- November 2006
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the DHCP server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes information about the country, administrative units such as states, provinces, and cities, as well as street addresses, postal community names, and building information. The option allows multiple renditions of the same address in different scripts and languages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the DHCP server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes information about the country, administrative units such as states, provinces, and cities, as well as street addresses, postal community names, and building information. The option allows multiple renditions of the same address in different scripts and languages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4676: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information
Proposed Standard- H. Schulzrinne
- October 2006
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the DHCP server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes information about the country, administrative units such as states, provinces, and cities, as well as street addresses, postal community names, and building information. The option allows multiple renditions of the same address in different scripts and languages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4776
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the DHCP server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes information about the country, administrative units such as states, provinces, and cities, as well as street addresses, postal community names, and building information. The option allows multiple renditions of the same address in different scripts and languages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4589: Location Types Registry
Proposed Standard- H. Schulzrinne
- H. Tschofenig
- July 2006
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document creates a registry for describing the types of places a human or end system might be found. The registry is then referenced by other protocols that need a common set of location terms as protocol constants. Examples of location terms defined in this document include aircraft, office, and train station. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document creates a registry for describing the types of places a human or end system might be found. The registry is then referenced by other protocols that need a common set of location terms as protocol constants. Examples of location terms defined in this document include aircraft, office, and train station. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4119: A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format
Proposed Standard- J. Peterson
- December 2005
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document describes an object format for carrying geographical information on the Internet. This location object extends the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF), which was designed for communicating privacy-sensitive presence information and which has similar properties. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes an object format for carrying geographical information on the Internet. This location object extends the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF), which was designed for communicating privacy-sensitive presence information and which has similar properties. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4079: A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of GEOPRIV Location Objects
Informational- J. Peterson
- July 2005
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
GEOPRIV defines the concept of a 'using protocol' -- a protocol that carries GEOPRIV location objects. GEOPRIV also defines various scenarios for the distribution of location objects that require the concepts of subscriptions and asynchronous notifications. This document examines some existing IETF work on the concept of presence, shows how presence architectures map onto GEOPRIV architectures, and moreover demonstrates that tools already developed for presence could be reused to simplify the standardization and implementation of GEOPRIV. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
GEOPRIV defines the concept of a 'using protocol' -- a protocol that carries GEOPRIV location objects. GEOPRIV also defines various scenarios for the distribution of location objects that require the concepts of subscriptions and asynchronous notifications. This document examines some existing IETF work on the concept of presence, shows how presence architectures map onto GEOPRIV architectures, and moreover demonstrates that tools already developed for presence could be reused to simplify the standardization and implementation of GEOPRIV. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3825: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information
Proposed Standard- J. Polk
- J. Schnizlein
- M. Linsner
- July 2004
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for the coordinate-based geographic location of the client. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes latitude, longitude, and altitude, with resolution indicators for each. The reference datum for these values is also included. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 6225
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for the coordinate-based geographic location of the client. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes latitude, longitude, and altitude, with resolution indicators for each. The reference datum for these values is also included. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3693: Geopriv Requirements
Informational- J. Cuellar
- J. Morris
- D. Mulligan
- J. Peterson
- J. Polk
- February 2004
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
Location-based services, navigation applications, emergency services, management of equipment in the field, and other location-dependent services need geographic location information about a Target (such as a user, resource or other entity). There is a need to securely gather and transfer location information for location services, while at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This document focuses on the authorization, security and privacy requirements for such location-dependent services. Specifically, it describes the requirements for the Geopriv Location Object (LO) and for the protocols that use this Location Object. This LO is envisioned to be the primary data structure used in all Geopriv protocol exchanges to securely transfer location data. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
Location-based services, navigation applications, emergency services, management of equipment in the field, and other location-dependent services need geographic location information about a Target (such as a user, resource or other entity). There is a need to securely gather and transfer location information for location services, while at the same time protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This document focuses on the authorization, security and privacy requirements for such location-dependent services. Specifically, it describes the requirements for the Geopriv Location Object (LO) and for the protocols that use this Location Object. This LO is envisioned to be the primary data structure used in all Geopriv protocol exchanges to securely transfer location data. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3694: Threat Analysis of the Geopriv Protocol
Informational- M. Danley
- D. Mulligan
- J. Morris
- J. Peterson
- February 2004
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document provides some analysis of threats against the Geopriv protocol architecture. It focuses on protocol threats, threats that result from the storage of data by entities in the architecture, and threats posed by the abuse of information yielded by Geopriv. Some security properties that meet these threats are enumerated as a reference for Geopriv requirements. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides some analysis of threats against the Geopriv protocol architecture. It focuses on protocol threats, threats that result from the storage of data by entities in the architecture, and threats posed by the abuse of information yielded by Geopriv. Some security properties that meet these threats are enumerated as a reference for Geopriv requirements. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 1876: A Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain Name System
Experimental- C. Davis
- P. Vixie
- T. Goodwin
- I. Dickinson
- January 1996
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo defines a new DNS RR type for experimental purposes. This RFC describes a mechanism to allow the DNS to carry location information about hosts, networks, and subnets. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo defines a new DNS RR type for experimental purposes. This RFC describes a mechanism to allow the DNS to carry location information about hosts, networks, and subnets. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Subscribe to geolocation
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.