GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations
RFC 5491
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(March 2009; Errata)
Updated by RFC 7459
Updates RFC 4119
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Martin Thomson , James Winterbottom , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 5491 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Cullen Jennings | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
Network Working Group J. Winterbottom Request for Comments: 5491 M. Thomson Updates: 4119 Andrew Corporation Category: Standards Track H. Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks March 2009 GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Winterbottom, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5491 GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage March 2009 Abstract The Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) specification provides a flexible and versatile means to represent location information. There are, however, circumstances that arise when information needs to be constrained in how it is represented. In these circumstances, the range of options that need to be implemented are reduced. There is growing interest in being able to use location information contained in a PIDF-LO for routing applications. To allow successful interoperability between applications, location information needs to be normative and more tightly constrained than is currently specified in RFC 4119 (PIDF- LO). This document makes recommendations on how to constrain, represent, and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO. It further recommends a subset of Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 that is mandatory to implement by applications involved in location-based routing. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................3 2. Terminology .....................................................3 3. Using Location Information ......................................4 3.1. Single Civic Location Information ..........................7 3.2. Civic and Geospatial Location Information ..................7 3.3. Manual/Automatic Configuration of Location Information .....8 3.4. Multiple Location Objects in a Single PIDF-LO ..............9 4. Geodetic Coordinate Representation .............................10 5. Geodetic Shape Representation ..................................10 5.1. Polygon Restrictions ......................................12 5.2. Shape Examples ............................................13 5.2.1. Point ..............................................13 5.2.2. Polygon ............................................14 5.2.3. Circle .............................................17 5.2.4. Ellipse ............................................17 5.2.5. Arc Band ...........................................19 5.2.6. Sphere .............................................21 5.2.7. Ellipsoid ..........................................22 5.2.8. Prism ..............................................24 6. Security Considerations ........................................26 7. Acknowledgments ................................................26 8. References .....................................................26 8.1. Normative References ......................................26 8.2. Informative References ....................................27 Winterbottom, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5491 GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage March 2009 1. Introduction The Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) [RFC4119] is the recommended way of encoding location information and associated privacy policies. Location information in a PIDF-LO may be described in a geospatial manner based on a subset of Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 [OGC-GML3.1.1] or as civic location information [RFC5139]. A GML profile for expressing geodetic shapes in a PIDF-LO is described in [GeoShape]. Uses for the PIDF-LO are envisioned in the context of numerous location-based applications.Show full document text