draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-00.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-01.txt 
Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U. Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Polk Intended status: Standards Track J. Polk
Expires: June 13, 2007 Cisco Expires: September 21, 2007 Cisco
H. Tschofenig H. Tschofenig
Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG
December 10, 2006 March 20, 2007
A Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) based Location-to-Service A Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) based Location-to-Service
Translation Protocol (LoST) Discovery Procedure Translation Protocol (LoST) Discovery Procedure
draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-00.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 21, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) describes an XML- The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) describes an XML-
based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geospatial or based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geospatial or
civic location information to service contact Uniform Resource civic location information to service contact Uniform Resource
Locators (URLs). LoST servers can be located anywhere but a Locators (URLs). LoST servers can be located anywhere but a
placement closer to the end host, e.g., in the access network, is placement closer to the end host, e.g., in the access network, is
desireable. Such a LoST server placement provides benefits in desireable. Such a LoST server placement provides benefits in
disaster situations with intermittent network connectivity regarding disaster situations with intermittent network connectivity regarding
skipping to change at page 4, line 9 skipping to change at page 4, line 9
The domain name is encoded according to Section 3.1 of RFC 1035 The domain name is encoded according to Section 3.1 of RFC 1035
[RFC1035] whereby each label is represented as a one octet length [RFC1035] whereby each label is represented as a one octet length
field followed by that number of octets. The domain name ends with field followed by that number of octets. The domain name ends with
the null label of the root, a domain name is terminated by a length 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 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 zero, and the remaining six bits of the length field limit the label
to 63 octets or less. To simplify implementations, the total length to 63 octets or less. To simplify implementations, the total length
of a domain name (i.e., label octets and label length octets) is of a domain name (i.e., label octets and label length octets) is
restricted to 255 octets or less. restricted to 255 octets or less.
RFC 1035 [RFC1035] encoding was chosen to accommodate future
internationalized domain name mechanisms.
For DHCPv4 only: If the length of the domain name exceeds the For DHCPv4 only: If the length of the domain name exceeds the
maximum permissible within a single option (i.e., 254 octets), then maximum permissible within a single option (i.e., 254 octets), then
the domain name MUST be represented in the DHCP message as specified the domain name MUST be represented in the DHCP message as specified
in [RFC3396]. in [RFC3396].
4. LoST Server DHCPv4 Option 4. LoST Server DHCPv4 Option
The LoST server DHCPv4 option carries a DNS (RFC 1035 [RFC1035]) The LoST server DHCPv4 option carries a DNS (RFC 1035 [RFC1035])
fully-qualified domain name to be used by the LoST client to locate a fully-qualified domain name to be used by the LoST client to locate a
LoST server. LoST server.
skipping to change at page 6, line 44 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
The authors would like to thank Andrew Newton and Leslie Daigle for The authors would like to thank Andrew Newton and Leslie Daigle for
their draft review. We would like to particularly thank Andrew their draft review. We would like to particularly thank Andrew
Newton for the simplifications he proposed. Newton for the simplifications he proposed.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]
Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02 (work in progress), Protocol", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-05 (work in progress),
October 2006. March 2007.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997. RFC 2131, March 1997.
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.daigle-unaptr] [I-D.daigle-unaptr]
Daigle, L., "Domain-based Application Service Location Daigle, L., "Domain-based Application Service Location
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
(DDDS)", draft-daigle-unaptr-01 (work in progress), (DDDS)", draft-daigle-unaptr-02 (work in progress),
October 2006. February 2007.
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-requirements]
Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for Schulzrinne, H. and R. Marshall, "Requirements for
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies", Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies",
draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-12 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13 (work in progress),
August 2006. March 2007.
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats]
Taylor, T., "Security Threats and Requirements for Taylor, T., "Security Threats and Requirements for
Emergency Call Marking and Mapping", Emergency Call Marking and Mapping",
draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-03 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-03 (work in progress),
July 2006. July 2006.
[RFC3319] Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host Configuration [RFC3319] Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session Initiation Protocol Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Servers", RFC 3319, July 2003. (SIP) Servers", RFC 3319, July 2003.
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
Munich, Bavaria 81739 Munich, Bavaria 81739
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 89 636 40390 Phone: +49 89 636 40390
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
URI: http://www.tschofenig.com URI: http://www.tschofenig.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/