One document matched: draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-19.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<?rfc linkmailto="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC4776 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4776.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2434 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2434.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3588 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3588.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4306 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4306.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4072 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4072.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4745 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4745.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3041 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3041.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4282 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4282.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4017 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4017.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4187 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4187.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4372 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4372.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4005 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4005.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1994 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1994.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3490 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3490.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4825 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4825.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.funk-eap-ttls-v0 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.funk-eap-ttls-v0.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis.xml">
]>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-19.txt" ipr="full3978">
<front>
<title abbrev="Carrying LOs in RADIUS and Diameter">Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
Diameter</title>
<author role="editor" fullname="Hannes Tschofenig" initials="H." surname="Tschofenig">
<organization abbrev="Nokia Siemens Networks">Nokia Siemens Networks</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Otto-Hahn-Ring 6</street>
<city>Munich</city>
<region>Bavaria</region>
<code>81739</code>
<country>Germany</country>
</postal>
<email>Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com</email>
<uri>http://www.tschofenig.com</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Farid Adrangi" initials="F." surname="Adrangi">
<organization abbrev="Intel">Intel Corporatation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>2111 N.E. 25th Avenue</street>
<city>Hillsboro OR</city>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>farid.adrangi@intel.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Mark Jones" initials="M." surname="Jones">
<organization abbrev="Bridgewater">Bridgewater Systems Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>303 Terry Fox Drive</street>
<city>Ottawa</city>
<region>Ontario</region>
<code>K2K 3J1</code>
<country>CANADA</country>
</postal>
<email>mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Avi Lior" initials="A." surname="Lior">
<organization abbrev="Bridgewater">Bridgewater Systems Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>303 Terry Fox Drive</street>
<city>Ottawa</city>
<region>Ontario</region>
<code>K2K 3J1</code>
<country>CANADA</country>
</postal>
<email>avi@bridgewatersystems.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Bernard Aboba" initials="B." surname="Aboba">
<organization>Microsoft Corporation</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>One Microsoft Way
</street>
<city>Redmond</city>
<region>WA</region>
<code>98052</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>bernarda@microsoft.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2008"/>
<area>Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area</area>
<workgroup>GEOPRIV</workgroup>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes procedures for conveying access network ownership and location
information based on a civic and geospatial location format in Remote Authentication Dial In
User Service (RADIUS) and Diameter.</t>
<t>The distribution of location information is a privacy sensitive task. Dealing with
mechanisms to preserve the user's privacy is important and addressed in this document.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
<t> This document defines attributes within RADIUS and Diameter that can be used to convey
location-related information within authentication and accounting exchanges. </t>
<t> Location information may be useful in a number of scenarios. Wireless networks (including
wireless LAN) are being deployed in public places such as airports, hotels, shopping malls,
and coffee shops by a diverse set of operators such as cellular network operators, Wireless
Internet Service Providers (WISPs), and fixed broadband operators. In these situations, the
home network may need to know the location of the user, in order to enable location-aware
billing, location-aware authorization, or other location-aware services. Location
information can also prove useful in other situations (such as wired networks) where
operator network ownership and location information may be needed by the home network. </t>
<t> In order to preserve user privacy, location information needs to be protected against
unauthorized access and distribution. Requirements for access to location information are
defined in <xref target="RFC3693"/>. The model includes a Location Generator (LG) that
creates location information, a Location Server (LS) that authorizes access to location
information, a Location Recipient (LR) that requests and receives information, and a Rule
Maker (RM) that provides authorization policies to the LS which enforces access control
policies on requests to location information. In <xref target="geopriv-requirements"/> the
requirements for a GEOPRIV Using Protocol are compared to the functionality provided by this
document. </t>
</section>
<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology">
<t>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
<xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
<t>RADIUS specific terminology is borrowed from <xref target="RFC2865"/> and <xref
target="RFC2866"/>.</t>
<t>Terminology related to privacy issues, location information and authorization policy rules
is taken from <xref target="RFC3693"/>.</t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="Delivery Methods for Location Information">
<t>The following exchanges show how location information is conveyed in RADIUS. In describing
the usage scenarios, we assume that privacy policies allow location to be conveyed in
RADIUS; however, as noted in <xref target="diameter-radius"/> similar exchanges can also
take place within Diameter. Privacy issues are discussed in <xref target="privacy"/>.</t>
<section title="Location Delivery based on Out-of-Band Agreements">
<t>
<xref target="initial-auth-delivery"/> shows an example message flow for delivering
location information during the network access authentication and authorization procedure.
Upon a network authentication request from an access network client, the Network Access
Server (NAS) submits a RADIUS Access-Request message that contains location information
attributes among other required attributes. In this scenario location information is
attached to the Access-Request message without an explicit request from the RADIUS server.
Note that such an approach with a prior agreement between the RADIUS client and the RADIUS
server is only applicable in certain environments, such as in situations where the RADIUS
client and server are within the same administrative domain. The
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute is populated based on the defaults described in
<xref target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/>, unless it has been explicitly configured
otherwise. </t>
<t>
<figure anchor="initial-auth-delivery"
title="Location Delivery based on out-of-band Agreements">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | | Network | | RADIUS |
| User | | Access | | Server |
| | | Server | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | |
| Authentication phase | |
| begin | |
|---------------------->| |
| | |
| | Access-Request |
| | + Location-Information |
| | + Location-Data |
| | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules|
| | + Operator-Name |
| |----------------------------->|
| | |
| | Access-Accept |
| |<-----------------------------|
| Authentication | |
| Success | |
|<----------------------| |
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Location Delivery based on Initial Request">
<t> If the RADIUS client provides a Location-Capable Attribute in the Access-Request, then
the RADIUS server MAY challenge the RADIUS client for location information if it requires
that information for authorization, and location information was not provided in
Access-Request. This exchange is shown in <xref target="challenge"/>. The inclusion of the
Location-Capable Attribute in an Access-Request message indicates that the NAS supports
this specification and is capable of providing location in response to an
Access-Challenge. The subsequent Access-Challenge message sent from the RADIUS server to
the NAS provides a hint regarding the type of desired location information attributes. The
NAS treates the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes
as opaque data (e.g., it echoes these rules provided by the server within the
Access-Challenge back in the Access-Request). In the shown message flow the location
attributes are then provided in the subsequent Access-Request message. When receiving this
Access-Request message the authorization procedure at the RADIUS server might be based on
a number of criteria, including the newly defined attributes listed in <xref
target="attributes"/>.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="challenge" title="Location Delivery based on Initial Request">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | | Network | | RADIUS |
| User | | Access | | Server |
| | | Server | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | |
| Authentication phase | |
| begin | |
|---------------------->| |
| | |
| | Access-Request |
| | + Location-Capable |
| |--------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Access-Challenge |
| | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules |
| | + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
| | + Requested-Location-Info |
| |<---------------------------------|
| | |
| | Access-Request |
| | + Location-Information |
| | + Location-Data |
| | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules |
| | + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
| |--------------------------------->|
| | |
: : :
: Multiple Protocol Exchanges to perform :
: Authentication, Key Exchange and Authorization :
: ...continued... :
: : :
| | |
| | Access-Accept |
| |<---------------------------------|
| Authentication | |
| Success | |
|<----------------------| |
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Location Delivery based on Mid-Session Request">
<t> The on demand mid-session location delivery method utilizes the Change of Authorization
Request (CoA-Request) message, defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis"/>. At
any time during the session the Dynamic Authorization Client MAY send a CoA-Request
containing session identification attributes to the NAS (i.e., Dynamic Authorization
Server). </t>
<t> By including a Service-Type Attribute with a value of "Authorize Only" a CoA-Request may
instruct the NAS to generate an Access-Request containing a Service-Type Attribute with
value "Authorize Only" in which case the RADIUS client MUST include location information
in this Access-Request if the Requested-Location-Info Attribute included in the
Access-Accept included the flag setting 'FUTURE_REQUESTS'. This also implies the echoing
of the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes received
in the previous Access-Accept within the Access-Request sent in response to the
CoA-Request. </t>
<t>Upon receiving the Access-Request message containing the Service-Type Attribute with a
value of Authorize-Only from the NAS, the RADIUS server responds with either an
Access-Accept or an Access-Reject message.</t>
<t><xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis"/> is necessary when location information is
needed on demand and cannot be obtained from accounting information in a timely fashion. </t>
<t>
<xref target="mid-session-authorization"/> shows the above-described approach graphically.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="mid-session-authorization"
title="Location Delivery based on CoA with Service-Type 'Authorize Only'">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------------+ +---------------+ +------+
| Dynamic | | Dynamic | |RADIUS|
| Authorization | | Authorization | |Server|
| Server/NAS | | Client | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +------+
| | |
| Access-Request | |
| + Location-Capable | |
|----------------------------------------------------------->|
| | |
| Access-Challenge | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Requested-Location-Info | |
|<-----------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
| Access-Request | |
| + Location-Information | |
| + Location-Data | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
|----------------------------------------------------------->|
| | |
| | |
: | :
: Multiple Protocol Exchanges to perform :
: Authentication, Key Exchange and Authorization :
: ...continued... | :
: | :
| | |
| | |
| Access-Accept | |
| + Requested-Location-Info | |
(FUTURE_REQUESTS,...) | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
|<-----------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
: : :
: <<Some time later>> : :
: : :
| | |
| CoA + Service-Type "Authorize Only" + State | |
|<--------------------------------------------| |
| | |
| CoA NAK + Service-Type "Authorize Only" | |
| + State | |
| + Error-Cause "Request Initiated" | |
|-------------------------------------------->| |
| | |
| Access-Request | |
| + Service-Type "Authorize Only" | |
| + State | |
| + Location-Information | |
| + Location-Data | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
|----------------------------------------------------------->|
| Access-Accept | |
|<-----------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> When the Dynamic Authorization Client wants to change the values of the requested
location information, or set the values of the requested location information for the
first time, it may do so without triggering a reauthorization. Assuming that the NAS had
previously sent an Access-Request containing a Location-Capable Attribute, the DAC can
send a CoA-Request to the NAS without a Service-Type Attribute, but including the NAS
Identifiers and Session identifers as per <xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis"/> and
the Requested-Location-Info, Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes. The Requested-Location-Info,
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes MUST NOT be used
for session identification. </t>
<t>
<xref target="mid-session-authorization2"/> shows this approach graphically.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="mid-session-authorization2" title="Location Delivery based on CoA">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------------+ +---------------+ +------+
| Dynamic | | Dynamic | |RADIUS|
| Authorization | | Authorization | |Server|
| Server/NAS | | Client | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +------+
| | |
| | |
| Access-Request | |
| + Location-Capable | |
|----------------------------------------------------------->|
| | |
| Access-Challenge | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Requested-Location-Info | |
|<-----------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
| Access-Request | |
| + Location-Information | |
| + Location-Data | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
|----------------------------------------------------------->|
| | |
| | |
: | :
: Multiple Protocol Exchanges to perform :
: Authentication, Key Exchange and Authorization :
: ...continued... | :
: | :
| | |
| | |
| Access-Accept | |
| + Requested-Location-Info | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
|<-----------------------------------------------------------|
| | |
: : :
: <<Some time later>> : :
: : :
| | |
| CoA | |
| + Requested-Location-Info | |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules | |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules | |
|<--------------------------------------------| |
| | |
| CoA ACK | |
|-------------------------------------------->| |
| | |
: : :
: <<Further exchanges later>> : :
: : :
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Location Delivery in Accounting Messages">
<t>Location Information may also be reported in accounting messages. Accounting messages are
generated when the session starts, when the session stops and periodically during the
lifetime of the session. Accounting messages may also be generated when the user roams
during handoff.</t>
<t>Accounting information may be needed by the billing system to calculate the user's bill.
For example, there may be different tariffs or tax rates applied based on the location.</t>
<t>If the RADIUS server needs to obtain location information in accounting messages then it
needs to include a Requested-Location-Info Attribute to the Access-Accept message. The
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes are to be
echoed in the Accounting-Request if indicated in the Access-Accept. </t>
<t><xref target="accounting"/> shows the message exchange.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="accounting" title="Location Delivery in Accounting Messages">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | | Network | | RADIUS |
| User | | Access | | Server |
| | | Server | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | |
: : :
: Initial Protocol Interaction :
: (details omitted) :
: : :
| | |
| | Access-Accept |
| | + Requested-Location-Info |
| | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules |
| | + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
| |<---------------------------------|
| Authentication | |
| Success | |
|<----------------------| |
| | |
| | Accounting-Request |
| | + Location-Information |
| | + Location-Data |
| | + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules |
| | + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules|
| |--------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Accounting-Response |
| |<---------------------------------|
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="attributes" title="Attributes">
<section anchor="Operator-Name-Attribute-Attr" title="Operator-Name Attribute">
<t>This attribute carries the operator namespace identifier and the operator name. The
operator name is combined with the namespace identifier to uniquely identify the owner of
an access network. The value of the Operator-Name is a non-NULL terminated string whose
length MUST NOT exceed 253 bytes.</t>
<t>The Operator-Name Attribute SHOULD be sent in Access-Request, and Accounting-Request
messages where the Acc-Status-Type is set to Start, Interim, or Stop.</t>
<t>A summary of the Operator-Name Attribute is shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Text ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Text (cont.) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Operator-Name
Length:
>= 5
Text:
This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
is shown below. The data type of this field is text.
All fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace ID | Operator-Name ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Operator-Name ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Namespace ID:
The value within this field contains the
operator namespace identifier. The Namespace ID value
is encoded in ASCII.
Example: '1' (0x31) for REALM
Operator-Name:
The text field of variable length contains an
Access Network Operator Name.
This field is a RADIUS base data type of Text.
Example: anyisp.example.com
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>The Namespace ID field provides information about the operator namespace. This document
defines four values for this attribute that are listed below. Additional namespace
identifiers must be registered with IANA (see <xref target="iana-operator-namespace-id"/>)
and must be associated with an organization responsible for managing the namespace.</t>
<!-- Requests to IANA will be evaluated by Expert Review as described in <xref
target="iana-operator-namespace-id"/>. </t>
-->
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="TADIG ('0' (0x30)):">
<vspace blankLines="1"/> This namespace can be used to indicate operator names based
on Transferred Account Data Interchange Group (TADIG) codes defined in <xref
target="GSM"/>. TADIG codes are assigned by the TADIG Working Group within the GSM
Association. The TADIG Code consists of two fields, with a total length of five ASCII
characters consisting of a three-character country code and a two-character
alphanumeric operator (or company) ID. <vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="REALM ('1' (0x31)):">
<vspace blankLines="1"/> The REALM operator namespace can be used to indicate operator
names based on any registered domain name. Such names are required to be unique and
the rights to use a given realm name are obtained coincident with acquiring the rights
to use a particular Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). Since this operator is limited
to ASCII, any registered domain name which contains non-ASCII characters must be
encoded. To encode a domain name, first ensure that any non-ASCII characters are in
Unicode <xref target="Unicode"/>, then apply the toAscii operation from RFC 3490 <xref
target="RFC3490"/> to each label, then re-assemble the encoded labels into a FQDN.
<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="E212 ('2' (0x32)):">
<vspace blankLines="1"/> The E212 namespace can be used to indicate operator names
based on the Mobile Country Code (MCC) and Mobile Network Code (MNC) defined in <xref
target="ITU212"/>. The MCC/MCC values are assigned by the Telecommunications
Standardization Bureau (TSB) within the ITU-T and designated administrators in
different countries. The E212 value consists of three ASCII digits containing the MCC,
followed by two or three ASCII digits containing the MNC. <vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="ICC ('3' (0x33)):">
<vspace blankLines="1"/> The ICC namespace can be used to indicate operator names
based on International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Carrier Codes (ICC) defined in
<xref target="ITU1400"/>. ICC values are assigned by national regulatory authorities
and are coordinated by the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) within the
ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). When using the ICC namespace,
the attribute consists of three uppercase ASCII characters containing a three-letter
alphabetic country code as defined in <xref target="ISO"/>, followed by one to six
uppercase alphanumeric ASCII characters containing the ICC itself. </t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr" title="Location-Information Attribute">
<t>The Location-Information Attribute MAY be sent in Access-Request and in
Accounting-Request messages. For the Accounting-Request message the Acc-Status-Type may be
set to Start, Interim or Stop.</t>
<t>The Location-Information Attribute provides meta-data about the location information,
such as sighting time, time-to-live, location determination method, etc. Implementations
SHOULD treat this attribute as undistinguished octets, like the Location-Data Attribute to
which it refers. </t>
<t>The format is shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | String ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String (cont.) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Location-Information
Length:
>= 21
String:
This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
The fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index | Code | Entity |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sighting Time ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sighting Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time-to-Live ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time-to-Live |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Method ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Index (16 bits):
The 16-bit unsigned integer value allows this attribute
to provide information relating to the information included
in the Location-Data Attribute to which it refers (via the Index).
Code: (8 bits):
Describes the location profile that is carried in this attribute
as an unsigned 8-bit integer value.
Entity (8 bits):
This field encodes which location this attribute refers to as an
unsigned 8-bit integer value.
Sighting Time (64 bits):
NTP timestamp for the 'sighting time' field.
Time-to-Live (64 bits):
NTP timestamp for the 'time-to-live' field.
Method (variable):
Describes the way that the location information was
determined. The values are registered with the 'method' Tokens
registry by RFC 4119. The data type of this
field is a string.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>The following fields need more explanation:</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="sighting time:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>This field indicates when the Location Information was
accurate. The data type of this field is a string and and the content is expressed in
the 64 bit Network Time Protocol (NTP) timestamp format <xref target="RFC1305"
/>.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="time-to-live:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>This field gives a hint until when location information should
be considered current. The data type of this field is a string and the content is
expressed in the 64 bit Network Time Protocol (NTP) timestamp format <xref
target="RFC1305"/>. Note that the time-to-live field is different than Retention
Expires field used in the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute, see <xref
target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/>. Retention expires indicates the time the
recipient is no longer permitted to possess the location information. <vspace
blankLines="1"/></t>
<t hangText="Entity:"><vspace blankLines="1"/> Location information can refer to
different entities. This document registers two entity values, namely: <list
style="empty">
<t>Value (0) describes the location of the user's client device </t>
<t>Value (1) describes the location of the RADIUS client </t>
</list> The registry used for these values is established by this document, see <xref
target="entity-registry"/>.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Code:"><vspace blankLines="1"/>This field indicates the content of the
location profile carried in the Location-Data Attribute. Two profiles are defined in
this document, namely one civic location profile (see <xref target="civic-profile"/>)
that uses value (0) and a geospatial location profile (see <xref target="geo-profile"
/>) that uses the value (1). </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>The length of the Location-Information Attribute MUST NOT exceed 253 octets.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Location-Data-Attribute" title="Location-Data Attribute">
<t>The Location-Data Attribute MAY be sent in Access-Request and in Accounting-Request
messages. For the Accounting-Request message the Acc-Status-Type may be set to Start,
Interim or Stop.</t>
<t>Implementations SHOULD treat this attribute as undistinguished octets.</t>
<t>The format is shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | String ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String (cont.) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Location-Data
Length:
>= 21
String:
This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
All fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index | Location ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Location ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Index (16 bits):
The 16-bit unsigned integer value allows to associate
the Location-Data Attribute with the
Location-Information Attributes.
Location (variable):
The format of the location data depends on the location
profile. This document defines two location profiles.
Details of the location profiles is described below.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<section anchor="civic-profile" title="Civic Location Profile">
<t>Civic location is a popular way to describe the location of an entity. This section
defines the civic location information profile corresponding to the value (0) indicated
in the Code field of the Location-Information Attribute. The location format is based on
the encoding format defined in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC4776"/> whereby the first
3 octets (i.e., the code for this DHCP option, the length of the DHCP option, and the
'what' element are not included) are not put into the Location field of the
above-described RADIUS Location-Data Attribute. </t>
</section>
<section anchor="geo-profile" title="Geospatial Location Profile">
<t>This section defines the geospatial location information profile corresponding to the
value (1) indicated in the Code field of the Location-Information Attribute. Geospatial
location information is encoded as an opaque object whereby the format is reused from
the Section 2 of RFC 3825 Location Configuration Information (LCI) format <xref
target="RFC3825"/>. starting with starting with the third octet (i.e., the code for
the DHCP option and the length field is not included). </t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules" title="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute">
<t>The Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute MAY be sent in an Access-Request,
Access-Accept, an Access-Challenge, an Access-Reject, a Change-of-Authorization and in an
Accounting-Request message.</t>
<t>Policy rules control the distribution of location information. The obligation with
respect to understanding and processing of the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute for
RADIUS clients is to utilize a default value of Basic-Location-Policy-Rules unless
explicitly configured otherwise, and also for clients to echo the
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute that they receive from a server. As a default, the
note-well field does not carry a pointer to human readable privacy policies, the
retransmission-allowed is set to zero (0), i.e., further distribution is not allowed, and
the retention-expires field is set to 24 hours. </t>
<t>With regard to authorization policies this document reuses work done in <xref
target="RFC4119"/> and encodes them in a non-XML format. Two fields ('sighting time' and
'time-to-live') are additionally included in the Location-Information Attribute to conform
to the GEOPRIV requirements <xref target="RFC3693"/>, Section 2.7.</t>
<t>The format of the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute is shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | String ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String (cont.) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
Length:
>= 12
String:
This field is at least 8 octets in length, and the format
is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
All fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Retention Expires ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retention Expires ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retention Expires | Note Well ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Note Well ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flag (16 bits):
Only the first bit (R) is defined and corresponds to the
retransmission-allowed field. All other bits are reserved
and MUST be zero.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The symbol 'o' refers to reserved flags.
Retention Expires (64 bits):
NTP timestamp for the 'retention-expires' field.
Note Well (variable):
This field contains a URI that points to human readable
privacy instructions. The data type of this field is string.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>This document reuses fields of the RFC 4119 <xref target="RFC4119"/> 'usage-rules'
element. These fields have the following meaning:</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="retransmission-allowed:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>When the value of this field is to zero (0), then the
recipient of this Location Object is not permitted to share the enclosed location
information, or the object as a whole, with other parties. The value of '1' allows to
share the location information with other parties by considering the extended policy
rules.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="retention-expires:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>This field specifies an absolute date at which time the
Recipient is no longer permitted to possess the location information. The data type of
this field is a string and the format is a 64 bit NTP timestamp <xref target="RFC1305"
/>.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="note-well:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>This field contains a URI that points to human readable
privacy instructions. This field is useful when location information is distributed to
third party entities, which can include humans in a location based service. RADIUS
entities are not supposed to process this field.<vspace blankLines="1"/> Whenever a
Location Object leaves the RADIUS eco-system the URI in the note-well attribute MUST
be expanded to the human readable text. For example, when the Location Object is
transferred to a SIP based environment then the human readable text is placed into the
'note-well' element of the 'usage-rules' element contained in the PIDF-LO document
(see <xref target="RFC4119"/>).</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules"
title="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute">
<t>The Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute MAY be sent in an Access-Request, an
Access-Accept, an Access-Challenge, an Access-Reject, an Change-of-Authorization and in an
Accounting-Request message.</t>
<t>The ruleset reference field of this attribute is of variable length. It contains a URI
that indicates where the richer ruleset can be found. This URI SHOULD use the HTTPS URI
scheme. As a deviation from <xref target="RFC4119"/> this field only contains a reference
and does not carry an attached extended rule set. This modification is motivated by the
size limitations imposed by RADIUS.</t>
<t>Policy rules control the distribution of location information and, as with the Basic
Policy Rules Attribute the obligation with respect to understanding and processing of the
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute for RADIUS clients is when they are explicitly
configured to attach the URI, and also for clients to echo the
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute that they receive from a server. There is no
expectation that RADIUS clients will need to retrieve data at the URL specified in the
attribute and to parse the XML policies. </t>
<t>The format of the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute is shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | String ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| String (cont.) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
Length:
>= 4
String:
This field is at least two octets in length, and the format
is shown below. The data type of this field is string.
The fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ruleset Reference ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ruleset Reference:
This field contains a URI that points to the policy rules.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Location-Capable-Attr" title="Location-Capable Attribute">
<t>The Location-Capable Attribute allows a NAS (or client function of a proxy server) to
indicate support for the functionality specified in this document.
<!-- processing general purpose Access-Challenge messages from the RADIUS
server, beyond those specified for support of the authentication methods of textual
challenge-response, PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP) or the
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP). This mechanism allows the RADIUS server to
request additional information from the RADIUS client prior to making an authentication
and authorization decision.
-->
The Location-Capable Attribute with the value for 'Location Capable' MUST be sent with the
Access-Request messages, if the NAS supports the functionality described in this document
and is capable of sending location information. A RADIUS server SHOULD NOT challenge for
location information unless the Location-Capable Attribute has been sent to it.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Integer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Integer (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Location-Capable Attribute
Length:
6
Integer:
This field is a 32-bit integer value.
Only a single value is defined for this field:
Value | Semantic
----------+-----------------
1 | Location Capable
Other bit positions are available via IANA
registration.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Requested-Location-Info-Attr" title="Requested-Location-Info Attribute">
<t>The Requested-Location-Info Attribute allows the RADIUS server to indicate what location
information about which entity it wants to receive. The latter aspect refers to the
entities that are indicated in the Entity field of the Location-Information Attribute.</t>
<t>The Requested-Location-Info Attribute MAY be sent in an Access-Accept, in an
Access-Challenge, or a Change of Authorization packet. </t>
<t>If the RADIUS server wants to dynamically decide on a per-request basis to ask for
location information from the RADIUS client then the following cases need to be
differentiated. If the RADIUS client and the RADIUS server have agreed out-of-band to
mandate the transfer of location information for every network access authentication
request then the processing listed below is not applicable.</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>If the RADIUS server requires location information for computing the authorization
decision and the RADIUS client does not provide it with the Access-Request message
then the Requested-Location-Info Attribute is attached to the Access-Challenge with a
hint about what is required. Two cases can be differentiated: <list style="numbers">
<t>If the RADIUS client sends the requested information then the RADIUS server can
process the location-based attributes.</t>
<t>If the RADIUS server does not receive the requested information in response to
the Access-Challenge (including the Requested-Location-Info Attribute) then the
RADIUS server may respond with an Access-Reject message with an Error-Cause
Attribute (including the "Location-Info-Required" value).
<!-- An Access-Reject MUST only be sent if the RADIUS
server requires location information, but does not receive it. -->
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>If the RADIUS server would like location information in the Accounting-Request
message but does not require it for computing an authorization decision then the
Access-Accept message MUST include a Required-Info Attribute. This is typically the
case when location information is used only for billing. The RADIUS client SHOULD
attach location information, if available, to the Accounting-Request (unless
authorization policies dictate something different).</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>If the RADIUS server does not send a Requested-Location-Info Attribute then the RADIUS
client MUST NOT attach location information to messages towards the RADIUS server, unless
an out-of-band agreement is in place. The user's authorization policies, if available,
MUST be consulted by the RADIUS server before requesting location information delivery
from the RADIUS client.</t>
<t>
<xref target="fig-Requested-Location-Info"/> shows a simple protocol exchange where the
RADIUS server indicates the desire to obtain location information, namely civic location
information of the user, to grant access. Since the Requested-Location-Info Attribute is
attached to the Access-Challenge the RADIUS server indicates that location information is
required for computing an authorization decision. </t>
<t>
<figure anchor="fig-Requested-Location-Info"
title="RADIUS server requesting location information">
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------+ +---------+
| RADIUS | | RADIUS |
| Client | | Server |
+---------+ +---------+
| |
| |
| Access-Request |
| + Location-Capable |
|--------------------------------->|
| |
| Access-Challenge |
| + Requested-Location-Info |
| ('CIVIC_LOCATION', |
| 'USERS_LOCATION') |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules |
|<---------------------------------|
| |
| Access-Request |
| + Location-Information |
| + Location-Data |
| + Basic-Location-Policy-Rules |
| + Extended-Location-Policy-Rules |
|--------------------------------->|
| |
| .... |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>The Requested-Location-Info Attribute MUST be sent by the RADIUS server, in the absence
of an out-of-band agreement, if it wants the RADIUS client to return location information
and if authorization policies permit it. This Requested-Location-Info Attribute MAY appear
in the Access-Accept or in the Access-Challenge message.</t>
<t>A summary of the attribute is shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Integer ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Integer (cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type:
To Be Assigned by IANA - Requested-Location-Info Attribute
Length:
6
Integer:
The content of the Integer field encodes the
requested information attributes.
Each capability value represents a bit position.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>This document specifies the following capabilities:</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>CIVIC_LOCATION<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/> The RADIUS server uses the Requested-Location-Info Attribute
with the value set to CIVIC_LOCATION to request specific location information from the
RADIUS client. The numerical value representing CIVIC_LOCATION requires the RADIUS
client to attach civic location attributes. CIVIC_LOCATION refers to the location
profile defined in <xref target="civic-profile"/>.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value of this token is '1'. <vspace blankLines="1"
/>
</t>
</list>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>GEO_LOCATION<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/> The RADIUS server uses the Requested-Location-Info Attribute
with the value set to GEO_LOCATION to request specific location information from the
RADIUS client. The numerical value representing GEO_LOCATION requires the RADIUS
client to attach geospatial location attributes. GEO_LOCATION refers to the location
profile described in <xref target="geo-profile"/>.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value of this token is '2'. <vspace blankLines="1"
/>
</t>
</list>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>USERS_LOCATION<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>The numerical value representing USERS_LOCATION indicates that
the RADIUS client MUST sent a Location-Information attribute with the Entity attribute
expressing the value of zero (0). Hence, there is a one-to-one relationship between
USERS_LOCATION token and the value of zero (0) of the Entity attribute inside the
Location-Information attribute. A value of zero indicates that the location
information in the Location-Information attribute refers to the user's client device.
<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value of this token is '4'. <vspace blankLines="1"
/>
</t>
</list>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>NAS_LOCATION<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>The numerical value representing NAS_LOCATION indicates that
the RADIUS client MUST sent a Location-Information attribute that contains location
information with the Entity attribute expressing the value of one (1). Hence, there is
a one-to-one relationship between NAS_LOCATION token and the value of one (1) of the
Entity attribute inside the Location-Information attribute. A value of one indicates
that the location information in the Location-Information attribute refers to the
RADIUS client.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value of this token is '8'. <vspace blankLines="1"
/>
</t>
</list>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>FUTURE_REQUESTS<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>The numerical value representing FUTURE_REQUESTS indicates
that the RADIUS client MUST provide future Access-Requests with the same information
as returned in the initial Access-Request message. <vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value of this token is '16'. <vspace
blankLines="1"/>
</t>
</list>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>NONE<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>The RADIUS server uses this token to request that the RADIUS
client stops sending location information.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value of this token is '32'. <vspace
blankLines="1"/>
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>If neither the NAS_LOCATION nor the USERS_LOCATION bit is set then per-default the
location of the user's client device is returned (if authorization policies allow it). If
both the NAS_LOCATION and the USERS_LOCATION bits are set then the returned location
information has to be put into separate attributes. If neither the CIVIC_LOCATION nor the
GEO_LOCATION bit is set in the Requested-Location-Info Attribute then no location
information is returned. If both the CIVIC_LOCATION and the GEO_LOCATION bits are set then
the location information has to be put into separate attributes. The value of NAS_LOCATION
and USERS_LOCATION refers to the location information requested via CIVIC_LOCATION and via
GEO_LOCATION.</t>
<t>As an example, if the bits for NAS_LOCATION, USERS_LOCATION and GEO_LOCATION are set then
location information of the RADIUS client and the users' client device are returned in a
geospatial location format.</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="table-of-attributes" title="Table of Attributes">
<t>The following table provides a guide which attributes may be found in which RADIUS
messages, and in what quantity.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="table" title="Table of Attributes">
<artwork><![CDATA[
Request Accept Reject Challenge Accounting # Attribute
Request
0-1 0 0 0 0-1 TBD Operator-Name
0+ 0 0 0 0+ TBD Location-Information
0+ 0 0 0 0+ TBD Location-Data
0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 TBD Basic-Location-
Policy-Rules
0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 TBD Extended-Location-
Policy-Rules
0 0-1 0 0-1 0 TBD Requested-Location-Info
0-1 0 0 0 0 TBD Location-Capable
0 0 0-1 0 0 101 Error-Cause [note1]
[note1] The Error-Cause attribute contains the value for the
'Location-Info-Required' error.
Change-of-Authorization Messages
Request ACK NAK # Attribute
0-1 0 0 TBD Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
0-1 0 0 TBD Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
0-1 0 0 TBD Requested-Location-Info
Legend:
0 This attribute MUST NOT be present.
0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present.
0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present.
1 Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present.
1+ One or more of these attributes MUST be present.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>The Error-Cause Attribute is defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis"/>.</t>
<t>The Location-Information and the Location-Data Attribute MAY appear more than once. For
example, if the server asks for civic and geospatial location information two
Location-Information Attributes need to be sent.</t>
<t>The attributes defined in this document are not used in any messages other than the onces
listed in <xref target="table"/>. </t>
<t>This document requests IANA to allocate a new value from the Error-Cause registry with the
semantic of 'Location-Info-Required'. </t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="diameter-radius" title="Diameter RADIUS Interoperability">
<t>When used in Diameter, the attributes defined in this specification can be used as Diameter
AVPs from the Code space 1-255 (RADIUS attribute compatibility space). No additional
Diameter Code values are therefore allocated. The data types and flag rules for the
attributes are as follows:</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+---------------------+
| AVP Flag rules |
+----+-----+----+-----+----+
| | |SHLD| MUST| |
Attribute Name Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT| NOT|Encr|
+---------------------------------+----+-----+----+-----+----+
|Operator-Name OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
|Location-Information OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
|Location-Data OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
|Basic-Location- | | | | | |
| Policy-Rules OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
|Extended-Location- | | | | | |
| Policy-Rules OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
|Requested- | | | | | |
| Location-Info OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
|Location-Capable OctetString| | P | | V,M | Y |
+---------------------------------+----+-----+----+-----+----+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t> The attributes in this specification have no special translation requirements for Diameter
to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways; they are copied as is, except for changes relating
to headers, alignment, and padding. See also Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC3588"/> and
Section 9 of <xref target="RFC4005"/>.</t>
<t> What this specification says about the applicability of the attributes for RADIUS
Access-Request packets applies in Diameter to AA-Request <xref target="RFC4005"/> or
Diameter-EAP-Request <xref target="RFC4072"/>. What is said about Access-Challenge applies
in Diameter to AA-Answer <xref target="RFC4005"/> or Diameter-EAP-Answer <xref
target="RFC4072"/> with Result-Code AVP set to DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH. What is said
about Access-Accept applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that
indicate success. Similarly, what is said about RADIUS Access-Reject packets applies in
Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate failure.</t>
<t>What is said about CoA-Request applies in Diameter to Re-Auth-Request <xref
target="RFC4005"/>.</t>
<t>What is said about Accounting-Request applies to Diameter Accounting-Request <xref
target="RFC4005"/> as well.</t>
<t>Note that these AVPs may be used by Diameter applications other than RFC 4005 and RFC 4072.
The above-mentioned applications are, however, likely to be relevant in the context of this
document.</t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="security-section" title="Security Considerations">
<t>A number of security aspects are relevant for the distribution of location information via
RADIUS. These aspects are discussed in separate sub-sections.</t>
<section anchor="comsec" title="Communication Security">
<t>Requirements for the protection of a Location Object are defined in <xref
target="RFC3693"/>, namely mutual end-point authentication, data object integrity, data
object confidentiality and replay protection. </t>
<t>If no authentication, integrity and replay protection between the participating RADIUS
entities is provided then adversaries can spoof and modify transmitted attributes. Two
security mechanisms are proposed for RADIUS:</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>
<xref target="RFC2865"/> proposes the usage of a static key that raised concerns
regarding the lack dynamic key management. At the time of writing, work is ongoing to
address some shortcomings of <xref target="RFC2865"/> attribute security protection. </t>
<t>RADIUS over IPsec <xref target="RFC3579"/> enables the use of standard key management
mechanisms, such as KINK, IKE and IKEv2 <xref target="RFC4306"/>, to establish IPsec
security associations. Confidentiality protection MUST be used to prevent eavesdropper
gaining access to location information. Confidentiality protection is not only a
property required by this document, it is also required for the transport of keying
material in the context of EAP authentication and authorization. Hence, this
requirement is, in many environments, already fulfilled. Mutual authentication MUST be
provided between neighboring RADIUS entities to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.
Since mutual authentication is already required for key transport within RADIUS
messages it does not represent a deployment obstacle. Since IPsec protection is
suggested as a mechanism to protect RADIUS already no additional considerations need
to be addressed beyond those described in <xref target="RFC3579"/>. </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>In case that IPsec protection is not available for some reason and RADIUS specific
security mechanisms have to be used then the following considerations apply. The
Access-Request message is not integrity protected. This would allow an adversary to change
the contents of the Location Object or to insert, modify and delete attributes or
individual fields. To address these problems the Message-Authenticator (80) can be used to
integrity protect the entire Access-Request packet. The Message-Authenticator (80) is also
required when EAP is used and hence is supported by many modern RADIUS servers.</t>
<t>Access-Request packets including location attribute(s) without a
Message-Authenticator(80) Attribute SHOULD be silently discarded by the RADIUS server. A
RADIUS server supporting location attributes MUST calculate the correct value of the
Message-Authenticator(80) and MUST silently discard the packet if it does not match the
value sent.</t>
<t>Access-Accept, including location attribute(s) without a Message-Authenticator(80)
Attribute SHOULD be silently discarded by the NAS. A NAS supporting location attributes
MUST calculate the correct value of a received Message-Authenticator(80) and MUST silently
discard the packet if it does not match the value sent.</t>
<t>RADIUS and Diameter make some assumptions about the trust between traversed RADIUS
entities in the sense that object level security is not provided by neither RADIUS nor
Diameter. Hence, some trust has to be placed on the RADIUS entities to behave according to
the defined rules. Furthermore, the RADIUS protocol does not involve the user in their
protocol interaction except for tunneling authentication information (such as EAP
messages) through their infrastructure. RADIUS and Diameter have even become a de-facto
protocol for key distribution for network access authentication applications. Hence, in
the past there were some concerns about the trust placed into the infrastructure
particularly from the security area when it comes to keying. The EAP keying infrastructure
is described in <xref target="RFC4282"/>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="privacy" title="Privacy Considerations">
<t>This section discusses privacy implications for the distribution of location information
within RADIUS. Note also that it is possible for the RADIUS server to obtain some amount
of location information from the NAS identifier. This document, however, describes
procedures to convey more accurate location information about the end host and/or the
network. In a number of deployment environments location information about the network
also reveals the current location of the user with a certain degree of precision depending
on the location determination mechanism used, update frequency, the size of the network
and other factors, such as movement traces. </t>
<t>Three types of use cases have to be differentiated: </t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>RADIUS server does not want to receive location information from the RADIUS client.</t>
<t>In case there is an out-of-band agreement between the entity responsible for the NAS
and the entity operating the RADIUS server then location information may be sent
without an explicit request from the RADIUS server. </t>
<t>The RADIUS server dynamically requests location information from the NAS.</t>
</list>
</t>
<section anchor="privacy-radius-client" title="RADIUS Client">
<t>The RADIUS client MUST behave according to the following guidelines:</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>If neither an out-of-band agreement exists nor location information is requested by
the RADIUS server then location information is not disclosed by the RADIUS client.</t>
<t>The RADIUS client MUST pass location information to other entities (e.g., when
information is written to a local database or to the log files) only together with
the policy rules. The entity receiving the location information (together with the
policies) MUST follow the guidance given with these rules. </t>
<t>A RADIUS client MUST include Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes that are configured within an
Access-Request packet. </t>
<t> NAS implementations supporting this specification, which are configured to provide
location information, MUST echo Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes unmodified within a subsequent
Access-Request packet. In addition, an Access-Request packet sent with a
Service-Type value of "Authorize Only" MUST include Basic-Location-Policy-Rules or
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules Attributes received in a previous Access-Accept if
the FUTURE_REQUESTS flag was set in the Requested-Location-Info Attribute. </t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="privacy-radius-server" title="RADIUS Server">
<t>The RADIUS server is a natural place for storing authorization policies since the user
typically has some sort of trust relationship with the entity operating the RADIUS
server. Once the infrastructure is deployed and location aware applications are
available then there might be a strong desire to use location information for other
purposes as well.</t>
<t>
<list style="empty">
<t>The Common Policy framework <xref target="RFC4745"/> that was extended for
geolocation privacy <xref target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy"/> are tailored for this
purpose. The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
<xref target="RFC4825"/> gives users the ability to change their
privacy policies using a standardized protocol. These policies are an important tool
for limiting further distribution of the user's location to other location based
services. </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>The RADIUS server MUST behave according to the following guidelines:</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>The RADIUS server MUST attach available rules to the Access-Accept, the
Access-Reject or the Access-Challenge message when the RADIUS client is supposed to
provide location information.</t>
<!-- <t>When instructing the RADIUS client to send location information for a particular user
then available authorization policies available to the RADIUS server's environment MUST
be inspected.</t>
-->
<t>When location information is made available to other entities (e.g., writing to
stable storage for latter billing processing) then the RADIUS server MUST attach the
privacy rules to location information. </t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="RADIUS Proxy">
<t>A RADIUS proxy, behaving as a combined RADIUS client and RADIUS server, MUST follow the
rules described in <xref target="privacy-radius-client"/> and <xref
target="privacy-radius-server"/>. </t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Identity Information and Location Information">
<t>For the envisioned usage scenarios, the identity of the user and his device is tightly
coupled to the transfer of location information. If the identity can be determined by the
visited network or RADIUS brokers, then it is possible to correlate location information
with a particular user. As such, it allows the visited network and brokers to learn
movement patterns of users.</t>
<t>The user's identity can be "leaked" to the visited network or RADIUS brokers in a number
of ways:</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>The user's device may employ a fixed MAC address, or base its IP address on such an
address. This enables the correlation of the particular device to its different
locations. Techniques exist to avoid the use of an IP address that is based on MAC
address <xref target="RFC3041"/>. Some link layers make it possible to avoid MAC
addresses or change them dynamically.</t>
<t>Network access authentication procedures, such as PPP CHAP <xref target="RFC1994"/>
or EAP <xref target="RFC4282"/>, may reveal the user's identity as a part of the
authentication procedure. Techniques exist to avoid this problem in EAP methods, for
instance by employing private Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) in the EAP Identity
Response message <xref target="RFC4187"/> and by method-specific private identity
exchange in the EAP method (e.g., <xref target="RFC4187"/>, <xref
target="I-D.funk-eap-ttls-v0"/>
<xref target="I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap"/>, <xref
target="I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2"/>). Support for identity privacy within CHAP is
not available.</t>
<t>RADIUS may return information from the home network to the visited in a manner that
makes it possible to either identify the user or at least correlate his session with
other sessions, such as the use of static data in a Class Attribute <xref
target="RFC2865"/> or in some accounting attribute usage scenarios <xref
target="RFC4372"/>.</t>
<t>Mobility protocols may reveal some long-term identifier, such as a home address.</t>
<t>Application layer protocols may reveal other permanent identifiers.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>To prevent the correlation of identities with location information it is necessary to
prevent leakage of identity information from all sources, not just one. </t>
<t>Unfortunately, most users are not educated about the importance of identity
confidentiality and some protocols lack support for identity privacy mechanisms. This
problem is made worse by the fact that users may be unable to choose particular protocols,
as the choice is often dictated by the type of network operator they use, by the type of
network they wish to access, the kind of equipment they have, or the type of
authentication method they are using.</t>
<t>A scenario where the user is attached to the home network is, from a privacy point of
view, simpler than a scenario where a user roams into a visited network since the NAS and
the home RADIUS server are in the same administrative domain. No direct relationship
between the visited and the home network operator may be available and some RADIUS brokers
need to be consulted. With subscription-based network access as used today the user has a
contractual relationship with the home network provider that could (theoretically) allow
higher privacy considerations to be applied (including policy rules stored at the home
network itself for the purpose of restricting further distribution).</t>
<t>In many cases it is necessary to secure the transport of location information along the
RADIUS infrastructure. Mechanisms to achieve this functionality are discussed in <xref
target="comsec"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>The authors request that the Attribute Types, and Attribute Values defined in this document
be registered by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) from the RADIUS name spaces
as described in the "IANA Considerations" section of RFC 3575 <xref target="RFC3575"/>, in
accordance with BCP 26 <xref target="RFC2434"/>. Additionally, the Attribute Type should be
registered in the Diameter name space. For RADIUS attributes and registries created by this
document IANA is requested to place them at http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types.</t>
<t>This document defines the following attributes:</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Operator-Name
Location-Information
Location-Data
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
Extended-Location-Policy-Rules
Location-Capable
Requested-Location-Info
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>Please refer to <xref target="table-of-attributes"/> for the registered list of numbers.</t>
<t>This document also instructs IANA to assign a new value for the Error-Cause Attribute <xref
target="I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis"/>, of "Location-Info-Required".</t>
<t>Additionally, IANA is requested to create the following new registries listed in the
subsections below.</t>
<section anchor="iana-operator-namespace-id"
title="New Registry: Operator Namespace Identifier">
<t> This document also defines an operator namespace identifier registry (used in the
Namespace ID field of the Operator-Name Attribute). Note that this document requests IANA
only to maintain a registry of existing namespaces for use in this identifier field, and
not to establish any namespaces nor to place any values within namespaces.</t>
<t>IANA is requested to add the following values to the operator namespace identifier
registry using a numerical identifier (allocated in sequence), a token for the operator
namespace and a contact person for the registry.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+----------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
|Identifier| Operator Namespace | Contact Person |
| | Token | |
+----------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0x30 | TADIG | TD.13 Coordinator |
| | | (td13@gsm.org) |
| 0x31 | REALM | IETF O&M Area Directors |
| | | (ops-chairs@ietf.org) |
| 0x32 | E212 | ITU Director |
| | | (tsbdir@itu.int) |
| 0x33 | ICC | ITU Director |
| | | (tsbdir@itu.int) |
+----------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
</figure> Note that the above identifier values represent the ASCII value '0' (decimal 48
or hex 0x30), '1' (decimal 49, or hex 0x31), '2' (decimal 50, or hex 0x32) and '3'
(decimal 51, or hex 0x33). This encoding was chosen to simplify parsing. </t>
<t>Requests to IANA for a new value for a Namespace ID will be approved by Expert Review.
The Designated Expert Reviewer team for these requests is the current Operations Area
Director and the RADEXT working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated
successor working group. </t>
<t>The Expert Reviewer should ensure that a new entry is indeed required or could fit within
an existing database, e.g., whether there is a real requirement to provide a token for an
Namespace ID because one is already up and running, or whether the REALM identifier plus
the name should recommended to the requester. In addition, the Expert Reviewer should
ascertain to some reasonable degree of diligence that a new entry is a correct reference
to an Operator Namespace, when a new one is registered.</t>
</section>
<section title="New Registry: Location Profiles">
<t><xref target="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr"/> defines the Location-Information
Attribute and a Code field that contains 8 bit integer value. Two values, zero and one,
are defined in this document, namely: </t>
<t>Value (0): Civic location profile described in <xref target="civic-profile"/></t>
<t>Value (1): Geospatial location profile described in <xref target="geo-profile"/></t>
<t>The remaining values are reserved for future use.</t>
<t>Following the policies outline in <xref target="RFC3575"/> the available bits with a
description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review initiated by the
O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT working group chairs or the
working group chairs of a designated successor working group. Updates can be provided
based on expert approval only. A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M
Area Directors. No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is envisioned. Based on
expert approval it is possible to delete entries from the registry.</t>
<t>Each registration must include the value and the corresponding semantic of the defined
location profile.</t>
</section>
<section title="New Registry: Location Capable Attribute">
<t><xref target="Location-Capable-Attr"/> defines the Location-Capable Attribute that
contains a bit map. 32 bits are available whereby a single bit, bit (0), indicating
'Location Capable' is defined by this document. Bits 1-15 are reserved for future use. </t>
<t>Following the policies outline in <xref target="RFC3575"/> the available bits with a
description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review initiated by the
O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT working group chairs or the
working group chairs of a designated successor working group. Updates can be provided
based on expert approval only. A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M
Area Directors. No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is envisioned. Based on
expert approval it is possible to delete entries from the registry.</t>
<t>Each registration must include the bit position and the semantic of the bit.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="entity-registry" title="New Registry: Entity Types">
<t><xref target="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr"/> defines the Location-Information
Attribute that contains an 8 bit Entity field. Two values are registered by this document,
namely:</t>
<t>Value (0) describes the location of the user's client device</t>
<t>Value (1) describes the location of the RADIUS client</t>
<t> All other values are reserved for future use. </t>
<t>Following the policies outline in <xref target="RFC3575"/> the available bits with a
description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review initiated by the
O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT working group chairs or the
working group chairs of a designated successor working group. Updates can be provided
based on expert approval only. A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M
Area Directors. No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is envisioned. Based on
expert approval it is possible to delete entries from the registry.</t>
<t>Each registration must include the value and a corresponding description.</t>
</section>
<section title="New Registry: Privacy Flags">
<t><xref target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/> defines the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules
Attribute that contains flags indicating privacy settings. 16 bits are available whereby a
single bit, bit (0), indicating 'retransmission allowed' is defined by this document. Bits
1-15 are reserved for future use. </t>
<t>Following the policies outline in <xref target="RFC3575"/> the available bits with a
description of their semantic will be assigned after Expert Review initiated by the
O&M Area Directors in consultation with the RADEXT working group chairs or the
working group chairs of a designated successor working group. Updates can be provided
based on expert approval only. A designated expert will be appointed by the O&M
Area Directors. No mechanism to mark entries as "deprecated" is envisioned. Based on
expert approval it is possible to delete entries from the registry.</t>
<t>Each registration must include the bit position and the semantic of the bit.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Requested-Location-Info-registry"
title="New Registry: Requested-Location-Info Attribute">
<t>
<xref target="Requested-Location-Info-Attr"/> defines the Requested-Location-Info
Attribute that contains a bit map. 32 bits are available whereby a 5 bits are defined by
this document. This document creates a new IANA registry for the Requested-Location-Info
Attribute. IANA is requested to add the following values to this registry: </t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+----------+----------------------+
| Value | Capability Token |
+----------+----------------------+
| 1 | CIVIC_LOCATION |
| 2 | GEO_LOCATION |
| 4 | USERS_LOCATION |
| 8 | NAS_LOCATION |
| 16 | FUTURE_REQUESTS |
| 32 | NONE |
+----------+----------------------+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>The semantic of these values is defined in <xref target="Requested-Location-Info-Attr"/>.</t>
<t>Following the policies outline in <xref target="RFC3575"/> new Capability Tokens with a
description of their semantic for usage with the Requested-Location-Info Attribute will be
assigned after Expert Review initiated by the O&M Area Directors in consultation
with the RADEXT working group chairs or the working group chairs of a designated successor
working group. Updates can be provided based on expert approval only. A designated expert
will be appointed by the O&M Area Directors. No mechanism to mark entries as
"deprecated" is envisioned. Based on expert approval it is possible to delete entries from
the registry.</t>
<t>Each registration must include:</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Name:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>Capability Token (i.e., an identifier of the
capability)<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Description:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>Brief description indicating the meaning of the info
element.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Numerical Value:">
<vspace blankLines="1"/>A numerical value that is placed into the Capability Attribute
representing a bit in the bit-string of the Requested-Location-Info Attribute.<vspace
blankLines="1"/>
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="Contributors">
<t>We would like to thank Bernhard Aboba for the numerous contributions to this document.</t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="Acknowledgments">
<t>The authors would like to thank the following people for their help with an initial version
of this draft and for their input: Chuck Black, Paul Congdon, Jouni Korhonen, Sami
Ala-luukko, Farooq Bari, Ed Van Horne, Mark Grayson, Jukka Tuomi, Jorge Cuellar, and
Christian Guenther. </t>
<t>Henning Schulzrinne provided the civic location information content found in this draft.
The geospatial location information format is based on work done by James Polk, John
Schnizlein and Marc Linsner. The authorization policy format is based on the work done by
Jon Peterson.</t>
<t>The authors would like to thank Victor Lortz, Jose Puthenkulam, Bernrad Aboba, Jari Arkko,
Parviz Yegani, Serge Manning, Kuntal Chowdury, Pasi Eronen, Blair Bullock and Eugene Chang
for their feedback to an initial version of this draft. We would like to thank Jari Arkko
for his text contributions. Lionel Morand provided detailed feedback on numerous issues. His
comments helped to improve the quality of this document. Jouni Korhonen, Victor Fajardo,
Tolga Asveren and John Loughney
helped us with the Diameter RADIUS interoperability section. Andreas Pashalidis reviewed a later
version document and provided a number of comments. Bernard Aboba, Alan DeKok, Lionel
Morand, Jouni Korhonen, David Nelson and Emile van Bergen provided guidance on the
Requested-Location-Info Attribute and participated in the capability exchange discussions.
Allison Mankin, Jouni Korhonen and Pasi Eronen provided text for the operator namespace
identifier registry. Jouni Korhonen interacted with the GSMA to find a contact person for
the TADIG operator namespace and Scott Bradner consulted the ITU-T to find a contact person
for the E212 and the ICC operator namespace.</t>
<t>This document is based on the discussions within the IETF GEOPRIV working group. Therefore,
the authors thank Henning Schulzrinne, James Polk, John Morris, Allison Mankin, Randall
Gellens, Andrew Newton, Ted Hardie, Jon Peterson for their time to discuss a number of
issues with us. We thank Stephen Hayes for aligning this work with 3GPP activities.</t>
<t>The RADEXT working group chairs, David Nelson and Bernard Aboba, provided several draft
reviews and we would like to thank them for the help and their patience.</t>
<t>Finally, we would like to thank Bernard Aboba and Dan Romascanu for the IETF Last Call
comments, Derek Atkins for his security area directorate review and Yoshiko Chong for
spotting a bug in the IANA consideration section. Bernard spend of lot of his time to
interact with the authors to resolve the IETF LC issues he raised. We would like to thank
him for the energie he spend on this document.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<back>
<references title="Normative References"> &RFC4776; &RFC2434; <reference
anchor="RFC2865">
<front>
<title>Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)</title>
<author fullname="C. Rigney" initials="C." surname="Rigney">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="S. Willens" initials="S." surname="Willens">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="A. Rubens" initials="A." surname="Rubens">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="W. Simpson" initials="W." surname="Simpson">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2000"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2865"/>
<format octets="146456" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2865.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference> &RFC2119; &RFC3490; <reference anchor="RFC3575">
<front>
<title>IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)</title>
<author fullname="B. Aboba" initials="B." surname="Aboba">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="July" year="2003"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3575"/>
<format octets="15539" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3575.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3825">
<front>
<title>Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
Configuration Information</title>
<author fullname="James Polk" initials="J" surname="Polk">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="John Schnizlein" initials="J" surname="Schnizlein">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Marc Linsner" initials="M" surname="Linsner">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="July" year="2004"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3825"/>
</reference> &RFC3588; </references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2866">
<front>
<title>RADIUS Accounting</title>
<author fullname="C. Rigney" initials="C." surname="Rigney">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2000"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2866"/>
<format octets="51135" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2866.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3579">
<front>
<title>RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)</title>
<author fullname="B. Aboba" initials="B." surname="Aboba">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="P. Calhoun" initials="P." surname="Calhoun">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="September" year="2003"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3579"/>
<format octets="104469" target="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3579.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC1305">
<front>
<title>Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation</title>
<author fullname="David L. Mills" initials="D." surname="Mills">
<organization>University of Delaware, Electrical Engineering Department</organization>
</author>
<date month="March" year="1992"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1305"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3693">
<front>
<title>Geopriv Requirements</title>
<author fullname="Jorge Cuellar" initials="J" surname="Cuellar">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="John Morris" initials="J" surname="Morris">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Deirdre Mulligan" initials="D" surname="Mulligan">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Jon Peterson" initials="D" surname="Peterson">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="James Polk" initials="D" surname="Polk">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="February" year="2004"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3693"/>
</reference> &RFC4187; &I-D.josefsson-pppext-eap-tls-eap; &RFC4119; &RFC4306;
&I-D.tschofenig-eap-ikev2; &I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy; &RFC4745; &RFC3041;
&RFC1994; &RFC4282; &RFC4017; &RFC4372; &RFC4005;
&RFC4072; &RFC4825;
&I-D.ietf-radext-rfc3576bis; &I-D.funk-eap-ttls-v0; <reference anchor="Unicode">
<front>
<title>The Unicode Standard -- Worldwide Character Encoding -- Version 1.0, Addison-
Wesley, Volume 1, 1991, Volume 2</title>
<author fullname="The Unicode Consortium">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="1992"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ITU1400">
<front>
<title>Designations for interconnections among operators' networks, ITU-T Recommendation
M.1400</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2004"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ITU212">
<front>
<title>The international identification plan for mobile terminals and mobile users, ITU-T
Recommendation E.212</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2004"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="GSM">
<front>
<title>TADIG Naming Conventions, Version 4.1", GSM Association Official Document TD.13 </title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2006"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="ISO">
<front>
<title>Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions - Part 1:
Country codes, ISO 3166-1</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="1997"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value=""/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="GMLv3">
<front>
<title>Open Geography Markup Language (GML) Implementation Specification", OGC 02-023r4,
http://www.opengis.org/techno/implementation.htm</title>
<author>
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2003"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="" value=""/>
</reference>
</references>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="geopriv-requirements" title="Matching with Geopriv Requirements">
<t>This section compares the requirements for a GEOPRIV Using Protocol, described in <xref
target="RFC3693"/>, against the approach of distributing Location Objects with RADIUS.</t>
<t>In <xref target="match-1"/> and <xref target="match-2"/> we discuss privacy implications
when RADIUS entities make location information available to other parties. In <xref
target="req-match"/> the requirements are matched against these two scenarios.</t>
<section anchor="match-1"
title="Distribution of Location Information at the User's Home Network">
<t>When location information is conveyed from the RADIUS client to the RADIUS server then it
might subsequently be made available for different purposes. This section discusses the
privacy implication for making location information available to other entities.</t>
<t> To use a more generic scenario we assume that the visited RADIUS and the home RADIUS
server belong to different administrative domains. The Location Recipient obtains location
information about a particular Target via protocols specified outside the scope of this
document (e.g., SIP, HTTP or an API).</t>
<t>The subsequent figure shows the interacting entities graphically.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="req-scenario-1" title="Location Server at the Home Network">
<artwork><![CDATA[
visited network | home network
|
| +----------+
| | Rule |
| | Holder |
| +----+-----+
| |
| rule|interface
+----------+ | V +----------+
|Location | | +----------+ notification |Location |
|Generator | | |Location |<------------->|Recipient |
+----------+ publication |Server | interface | |
|RADIUS |<------------->+----------+ +----------+
|Client | interface |RADIUS | E.g., SIP/HTTP
+----------+ | |Server |
| +----------+
E.g., NAS RADIUS
|
|
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>The term 'Rule Holder' in <xref target="req-scenario-1"/> denotes the entity that creates
the authorization rule set.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="match-2" title="Distribution of Location Information at the Visited Network">
<t>This section describes a scenario where location information made available to Location
Recipients by a Location Server in the visited network. Some identifier needs to be used
as an index within the location database. One possible identifier is the Network Access
Identifier. RFC 4282 <xref target="RFC4282"/> and RFC 4372 <xref target="RFC4372"/>
provide background whether entities in the visited network can obtain the user's NAI in
cleartext. </t>
<t>The visited network provides location information to a Location Recipient (e.g., via SIP
or HTTP). This document enables the NAS to obtain the user's privacy policy via the
interaction with the RADIUS server. Otherwise only default policies, which are very
restrictive, are available. This allows the Location Server in the visited network to
ensure act according to the user's policies.</t>
<t>The subsequent figure shows the interacting entities graphically.</t>
<t>
<figure anchor="req-scenario-2" title="Location Server at the Visited Network">
<artwork><![CDATA[
visited network | home network
|
+----------+ |
|Location | |
|Recipient | |
| | |
+----------+ |
^ | +----------+
| | | Rule |
notification | | Holder |
interface | | |
| | +----+-----+
| | |
| | rule|interface
v | |
+----------+ | |
|Location | | v
|Server | | +----------+
+----------+ Rule Transport|RADIUS |
|RADIUS |<------------->|Server |
|Client | RADIUS +----------+
+----------+ |
|Location | |
|Generator |
+----------+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<t>Location information always travels with privacy policies. This document enables the RADIUS
client to obtain these policies. The Location Server can subsequently act according to these
policies to provide access control using the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules and to adhere
the privacy statements in the Basic-Location-Policy-Rules.</t>
<section anchor="req-match" title="Requirements matching">
<t>Section 7.1 of <xref target="RFC3693"/> details the requirements of a "Location Object".
We discuss these requirements in the subsequent list.</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Req. 1. (Location Object generalities):">
<list style="symbols">
<t>Regarding requirement 1.1, the syntax and semantic of the location object is
taken from the <xref target="RFC3825"/> and <xref target="RFC4776"/>. It is
furthermore possible to convert it to the format used in GMLv3 <xref
target="GMLv3"/>, as used with PIDF-LO <xref target="RFC4119"/>. </t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.2, a number of fields in the civic location information
format are optional.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.3, the inclusion of type of place item (CAtype 29) used
in the DHCP civic format gives a further classification of the location. This
attribute can be seen as an extension.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.4, this document does not define the format of the
location information. </t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.5, location information is only sent from the RADIUS
client to the RADIUS server.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.6, the Location Object contains both location information
and privacy rules. Location information is described in <xref
target="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr"/>, in <xref target="civic-profile"
/> and in <xref target="geo-profile"/>. The corresponding privacy rules are
detailed in <xref target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/> and in <xref
target="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules"/>.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.7, the Location Object is usable in a variety of
protocols. The format of the object is reused from other documents as detailed in
<xref target="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr"/>, <xref
target="civic-profile"/>, <xref target="geo-profile"/>
<xref target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/> and in <xref
target="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules"/>).</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 1.8, the encoding of the Location Object has an emphasis on
a lightweight encoding format to be used with RADIUS.</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 2. (Location Object fields):">
<list style="symbols">
<t>Regarding requirement 2.1, the Target Identifier is carried within the network
access authentication protocol (e.g., within the EAP-Identity Response when EAP is
used and/or within the EAP method itself). As described in <xref target="privacy"
/> it has a number of advantages if this identifier is not carried in clear. This
is possible with certain EAP methods whereby the identity in the EAP-Identity
Response only contains information relevant for routing the response to the user's
home network. The user identity is protected by the authentication and key
exchange protocol.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.2, the Location Recipient is in the main scenario the
home RADIUS server. For a scenario where the Location Recipient is obtaining
Location Information from the Location Server via HTTP or SIP the respective
mechanisms defined in these protocols are used to identify the recipient. The
Location Generator cannot, a priori, know the recipients if they are not defined
in this protocol.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.3, the credentials of the Location Recipient are known to
the RADIUS entities based on the security mechanisms defined in the RADIUS
protocol itself. <xref target="security-section"/> describes these security
mechanisms offered by the RADIUS protocol. The same is true for requirement 2.4.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.5, <xref target="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr"/>,
<xref target="civic-profile"/> and <xref target="geo-profile"/> describe the
content of the location fields. Since the location format itself is not defined in
this document motion and direction vectors as listed in requirement 2.6 are not
defined. </t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.6, this document provides the capability for the RADIUS
server to indicate what type of location information it would like to see from the
RADIUS client. </t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.7, timing information is provided with 'sighting time'
and 'time-to-live' field defined in <xref
target="Location-Information-Attribute-Attr"/>.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.8, a reference to an external (more detailed rule set) is
provided with the Extended-Location-Policy-Rules attribute <xref
target="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules"/> .</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.9, security headers and trailers are provided as part of
the RADIUS protocol or even as part of IPsec.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 2.10, a version number in RADIUS is provided with the IANA
registration of the attributes. New attributes are assigned a new IANA number.</t>
</list>
<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 3. (Location Data Types):">
<list style="symbols">
<t>Regarding requirement 3.1, this document reuses civic and geospatial location
information as described in <xref target="geo-profile"/> and in <xref
target="civic-profile"/>.</t>
<t>With the support of civic and geospatial location information support requirement
3.2 is fulfilled.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 3.3, the geospatial location information used by this
document only refers to absolute coordinates. However, the granularity of the
location information can be reduced with the help of the AltRes, LoRes, LaRes
fields described in <xref target="RFC3825"/>.</t>
<t>Regarding requirement 3.4, further Location Data Types can be added via new
coordinate reference systems (CRSs) (see Datum field in <xref target="RFC3825"/>)
and via extensions to <xref target="RFC3825"/> and <xref target="RFC4776"/>.</t>
</list>
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Section 7.2 of <xref target="RFC3693"/> details the requirements of a "Using Protocol".
These requirements are listed below:<vspace blankLines="1"/>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Req. 4.:">The using protocol has to obey the privacy and security
instructions coded in the Location Object regarding the transmission and storage of
the LO. This document requires that entities that aim to make location information
available to third parties are required to obey the privacy instructions.<vspace
blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 5.:">The using protocol will typically facilitate that the keys
associated with the credentials are transported to the respective parties, that is,
key establishment is the responsibility of the using protocol. <xref
target="security-section"/> specifies how security mechanisms are used in RADIUS and
how they can be reused to provide security protection for the Location Object.
Additionally, the privacy considerations (see <xref target="privacy"/>) are also
relevant for this requirement. <vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 6. (Single Message Transfer):">In particular, for tracking of small
target devices, the design should allow a single message/packet transmission of
location as a complete transaction. The encoding of the Location Object is
specifically tailored towards the inclusion into a single message that even respects
the (Path) MTU size.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Section 7.3 of <xref target="RFC3693"/> details the requirements of a "Rule based
Location Data Transfer". These requirements are listed below: <vspace blankLines="1"/>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Req. 7. (LS Rules):">With the scenario shown in <xref
target="req-scenario-1"/> the decision of a Location Server to provide a Location
Recipient access to location information is based on Rule Maker-defined Privacy Rules
that are stored at the home network. With regard to the scenario shown in <xref
target="req-scenario-2"/> the Rule Maker-defined Privacy Rules are sent from the
RADIUS server to the NAS (see <xref target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/>, <xref
target="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules"/> and <xref target="privacy"/> for more
details).<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 8. (LG Rules):">For all usage scenario it is possible to consider the
privacy rule before transmitting location information from the NAS to the RADIUS
server or even to third parties. In the case of an out-of-band agreement between the
owner of the NAS and the owner of the RADIUS server privacy might be applied on a
higher granularity. For the scenario shown in <xref target="req-scenario-1"/> the
visited network is already in possession of the users location information prior to
the authentication and authorization of the user. A correlation between the location
and the user identity might, however, still not be possible for the visited network
(as explained in <xref target="privacy"/>). A Location Server in the visited network
has to evaluate available rulesets.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 9. (Viewer Rules):">The Rule Maker might define (via mechanisms
outside the scope of this document) which policy rules are disclosed to other
entities.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 10. (Full Rule language):">Geopriv has defined a rule language
capable of expressing a wide range of privacy rules which is applicable in the area of
the distribution of Location Objects. A basic ruleset is provided with the
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules Attribute <xref target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/>. A
reference to the extended ruleset is carried in <xref
target="Extended-Location-Policy-Rules"/>. The format of these rules are described
in <xref target="RFC4745"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-geopriv-policy"/>. <vspace
blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 11. (Limited Rule language):">A limited (or basic) ruleset is
provided by the Policy-Information Attribute <xref
target="Basic-Location-Policy-Rules"/> (and as introduced with PIDF-LO <xref
target="RFC4119"/>).</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Section 7.4 of <xref target="RFC3693"/> details the requirements of a "Location Object
Privacy and Security". These requirements are listed below:<vspace blankLines="1"/>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Req. 12 (Identity Protection):">Support for unlinkable pseudonyms is
provided by the usage of a corresponding authentication and key exchange protocol.
Such protocols are available, for example, with the support of EAP as network access
authentication methods. Some EAP methods support passive user identity confidentiality
whereas others even support active user identity confidentiality. This issue is
further discussed in <xref target="security-section"/>. The importance for user
identity confidentiality and identity protection has already been recognized as an
important property (see, for example, a document on 'EAP Method Requirements for
Wireless LANs' <xref target="RFC4017"/>).<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 13. (Credential Requirements):">As described in <xref
target="security-section"/> RADIUS signaling messages can be protected with IPsec.
This allows a number of authentication and key exchange protocols to be used as part
of IKE, IKEv2 or KINK.<vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 14. (Security Features):">Geopriv defines a few security requirements
for the protection of Location Objects, such as mutual end-point authentication, data
object integrity, data object confidentiality and replay protection. As described in
<xref target="security-section"/> these requirements are fulfilled with the usage of
IPsec if mutual authentication refers to the RADIUS entities (acting as various
Geopriv entities) which directly communicate with each other. <vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Req. 15. (Minimal Crypto):">A minimum of security mechanisms are mandated
by the usage of RADIUS. Communication security for Location Objects between RADIUS
infrastructure elements is provided by the RADIUS protocol (including IPsec and its
dynamic key management framework) rather than on relying on object security via S/SIME
(which is not available with RADIUS).</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:32:56 |