draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-01.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt 
ECRIT H. Schulzrinne ECRIT H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U. Internet-Draft Columbia University
Intended status: Standards Track J. Polk Intended status: Standards Track J. Polk
Expires: September 21, 2007 Cisco Expires: January 9, 2008 Cisco
H. Tschofenig H. Tschofenig
Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG Nokia Siemens Networks
March 20, 2007 July 8, 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-01.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.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 September 21, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Domain Name Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Domain Name Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. LoST Server DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. LoST Server DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. LoST Server DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. LoST Server DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. IANA Consideration for DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. IANA Consideration for DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. IANA Consideration for DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. IANA Consideration for DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST)
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] describes an XML-based protocol for mapping [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] describes an XML-based protocol for mapping
service identifiers and geospatial or civic location information to service identifiers and geospatial or civic location information to
service contact Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). service contact Uniform Resource Locators (URLs).
In order to interact with a LoST server, the LoST client finally In order to interact with a LoST server, the LoST client finally
needs to know its IP address. Several mechanisms can be used to needs to know its IP address. Several mechanisms can be used to
learn this address, including manual configuration. In environments learn this address, including manual configuration. In environments
where the access network itself either deploys a LoST server or knows where the access network itself either deploys a LoST server or knows
a third party that operates a LoST server DHCP can provide the end a third party that operates a LoST server DHCP can provide the end
host with a domain name. This domain name is then used as input to host with a domain name. This domain name is then used as input to
the DNS-based resolution mechanism described in LoST the DNS-based resolution mechanism described in LoST
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] that reuses the URI-enabled NAPTR specification [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] that reuses the URI-enabled NAPTR specification
(see [I-D.daigle-unaptr]). (see [RFC4848]).
This document specifies a DHCPv4 and a DHCPv6 option that allows LoST This document specifies a DHCPv4 and a DHCPv6 option that allows LoST
clients to discover local LoST servers. clients to discover local LoST servers.
Section 2 provides terminology. Section 4 describes the DHCPv4 Section 2 provides terminology. Section 4 describes the DHCPv4
option while Section 5 describes the DHCPv6 option, with the same option while Section 5 describes the DHCPv6 option, with the same
functionality. IANA and Security Considerations complete the functionality. IANA and Security Considerations complete the
document in Section 7 and Section 8. document in Section 7 and Section 8.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
skipping to change at page 3, line 50 skipping to change at page 3, line 50
3. Domain Name Encoding 3. Domain Name Encoding
This section describes the encoding of the domain name used in the This section describes the encoding of the domain name used in the
DHCPv4 option shown in Section 4 and also used in the DHCPv6 option DHCPv4 option shown in Section 4 and also used in the DHCPv6 option
shown in Section 5. shown in Section 5.
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.
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].
skipping to change at page 4, line 29 skipping to change at page 4, line 29
The DHCP option for this encoding has the following format: The DHCP option for this encoding has the following format:
Code Len LoST Server Domain Name Code Len LoST Server Domain Name
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----
| TBD | n | s1 | s2 | s3 | s4 | s5 | ... | TBD | n | s1 | s2 | s3 | s4 | s5 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----
Figure 1: LoST FQDN DHCPv4 Option Figure 1: LoST FQDN DHCPv4 Option
Code: OPTION_LOST (TBD1) Code: OPTION_V4_LOST (TBD1)
Len: Length of the 'LoST Server Domain Name' field Len: Length of the 'LoST Server Domain Name' field
in octets; variable. in octets; variable.
LoST server Domain Name: The domain name of the LoST LoST server Domain Name: The domain name of the LoST
server for the client to use. server for the client to use.
The encoding of the domain name is described in Section 3. The encoding of the domain name is described in Section 3.
Only a single domain name MUST be present in the DHCPv4 option. Only a single domain name MUST be present in the DHCPv4 option.
5. LoST Server DHCPv6 Option 5. LoST Server DHCPv6 Option
This document defines a DHCPv6 options to carry a domain name. This document defines a DHCPv6 options to carry a domain name.
The DHCPv6 option has the format shown in Figure 3. The DHCPv6 option has the format shown in Figure 3.
0 1 2 3 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 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_LOST | option-length | | OPTION_V6_LOST | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LoST Server Domain Name | | LoST Server Domain Name |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: DHCPv6 Option for LoST Server Domain Name List Figure 3: DHCPv6 Option for LoST Server Domain Name List
option-code: OPTION_LOST (TBD2) option-code: OPTION_V6_LOST (TBD2)
option-length: Length of the 'LoST Server Domain Name' field option-length: Length of the 'LoST Server Domain Name' field
in octets; variable. in octets; variable.
LoST server Domain Name: The domain name of the LoST LoST server Domain Name: The domain name of the LoST
server for the client to use. server for the client to use.
A DHCPv6 client may request a LoST server domain name in an Options A DHCPv6 client MAY request a LoST server domain name in an Options
Request Option (ORO) as described in [RFC3315]. Request Option (ORO), as described in [RFC3315].
A DHCPv4 client MAY request a LoST server domain name in an Parameter
Request List option, as described in [RFC2131].
The encoding of the domain name is described in Section 3. The encoding of the domain name is described in Section 3.
Only a single domain name MUST be present in the DHCPv6 option. Only a single domain name MUST be present in the DHCPv6 option.
6. Example 6. Example
This section shows an example of a DHCPv4 option where the DHCP This section shows an example of a DHCPv4 option where the DHCP
server wants to offer the "example.com" domain name to the client as server wants to offer the "example.com" domain name to the client as
input to the U-NAPTR LoST discovery procedure. This domain name input to the U-NAPTR LoST discovery procedure. This domain name
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. IANA Consideration for DHCPv4 Option 7.1. IANA Consideration for DHCPv4 Option
The following DHCPv4 option code for the Location-to-Service The following DHCPv4 option code for the Location-to-Service
Translation Protocol (LoST) server option must be assigned by IANA: Translation Protocol (LoST) server option must be assigned by IANA:
Option Name Value Described in Option Name Value Described in
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
OPTION_LOST TBD Section 4 OPTION_V4_LOST TBD Section 4
7.2. IANA Consideration for DHCPv6 Option 7.2. IANA Consideration for DHCPv6 Option
IANA is requested to assign the following DHCPv6 option codes for the IANA is requested to assign the following DHCPv6 option codes for the
Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) options: Location-to-Service Translation Protocol (LoST) options:
Option Name Value Described in Option Name Value Described in
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
OPTION_LOST TBD Section 5 OPTION_V6_LOST TBD Section 5
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
If an adversary manages to modify the response from a DHCP server or If an adversary manages to modify the response from a DHCP server or
insert its own response, a LoST client could be led to contact a insert its own response, a LoST client could be led to contact a
rogue LoST server under the control of the adversary or be given an rogue LoST server under the control of the adversary or be given an
invalid address. These threats are documented in invalid address. These threats are documented in
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats]. The security considerations in [I-D.ietf-ecrit-security-threats]. The security considerations in
[RFC2131], [RFC2132] and [RFC3315] are applicable to this document. [RFC2131], [RFC2132] and [RFC3315] are applicable to this document.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
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.
Mark Stapp did the document review of this document for the DHC
working group as part of the joint working group last call.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost] [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
Protocol", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-05 (work in progress),
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.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor [RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
November 2002.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.daigle-unaptr] [I-D.ietf-ecrit-lost]
Daigle, L., "Domain-based Application Service Location Hardie, T., "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service Protocol", draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-05 (work in progress),
(DDDS)", draft-daigle-unaptr-02 (work in progress), March 2007.
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-13 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements-13 (work in progress),
March 2007. 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-04 (work in progress),
July 2006. April 2007.
[RFC3319] Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Servers", RFC 3319, July 2003.
[RFC3361] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP-for-IPv4) Option for Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Servers", RFC 3361, August 2002.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the [RFC4848] Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
November 2002. (DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Henning Schulzrinne Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University Columbia University
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building 450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027 New York, NY 10027
US US
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
James Polk James Polk
Cisco Cisco
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
Richardson, Texas 75082 Richardson, Texas 75082
US US
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
Hannes Tschofenig Hannes Tschofenig
Siemens Networks GmbH & Co KG Nokia Siemens Networks
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@nsn.com
URI: http://www.tschofenig.com URI: http://www.tschofenig.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 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.
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 41 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/