Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [ecrit] #9: Definition of Trustworthy

From: "ecrit issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:10:14 -0000

#9: Definition of Trustworthy

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Here is the proposed replacement for the terminology Section 1.1,
 including the definition of "trustworthy location":

 1.1.  Terminology

    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 [RFC2119].

    The definition for "Target" is taken from RFC 3693 [RFC3693].

    The term "location determination method" refers to the mechanism used
    to determine the location of a Target.  This may be something
    employed by a location information server (LIS), or by the Target
    itself.  It specifically does not refer to the location configuration
    protocol (LCP) used to deliver location information either to the
    Target or the Recipient.  This term is re-used from RFC 5491
    [RFC5491].

    The term "source" is used to refer to the LIS, node, or device from
    which a Recipient (Target or Third-Party) obtains location
    information.

    Additionally, the terms Location-by-Value (LbyV), Location-by-
    Reference (LbyR), Location Configuration Protocol, Location
    Dereference Protocol, and Location URI are re-used from RFC 5808
    [RFC5808].

    "Trustworthy Location" is defined as location information that is
    inherently secure and reliable.  For location to be trustworthy, it
    must have been securely obtained from a trustworthy source, and must
    also have been securely conveyed.

    As noted in Section 3, signed location by Value, location by
    Reference and proxy-provided location can be used to securely convey
    location information.  However, since these mechanisms do not provide
    assurances relating to the validity or provenance of location data,
    the trustworthiness of the location source is important.

    For example, in an emergency situation, location provided by a
    Location Information Server (LIS) whose administrator has an
    established history of meeting emergency location accuracy
    requirements (e.g. Phase II) may be considered more reliable than
    location information provided by a third party Location Service
    Provider (LSP) that disclaims use of location information for
    emergency purposes.  However, even where an LSP cannot meet the
    accuracy requirements for emergency location, it still may be able to
    provide information useful in assessing about how reliable location
    information is likely to be.  For example,  was location determined
    based on the nearest cell tower or 802.11 Access Point (AP), or was a
    triangulation method used?  If based on cell tower or AP location
    data, was the information obtained from an authoritative source (e.g.
    the tower or AP owner) and when was the last time that the location
    of the tower or access point was verified?

    "Location Trust Assessment" refers to the process by which the
    trustworthiness of location information can be assessed.  Where
    location is not trustworthy (such as when location is provided by
    value, but is not signed), it may still be possible to assess the
    level of trust that can be placed in the location, by correlation of
    the location value against other data, such as using the caller's IP
    address or information provided in SIP headers.  This is discussed in
    Section 3.4.

    Caller accountability is also an important aspect of trust
    assessment.  Can the individual purchasing the device or activating
    service be identified or did the call originate from a non-service
    initialized (NSI) device whose owner cannot be determined?  Prior to
    the call, was the caller authenticated at the network or application
    layer?  In the event of a prank call, can audit logs be made
    available to an investigator, or can information relating to the
    owner of an unlinked pseudonym be provided, enabling investigators to
    unravel the chain of events that lead to the attack?

    In practice, accountability has proven to be quite important.  For
    example, where emergency calls have been allowed from handsets
    lacking a SIM card, or where ownership of the SIM card cannot be
    determined, the frequency of nuisance calls has often been
    unacceptably high [TASMANIA][UK][SA].

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
 Priority:  blocker                  |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  trustworthy-location     |     Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/ticket/9#comment:2>
ecrit <http://tools.ietf.org/ecrit/>

---

From: "ecrit issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:25:23 -0000

Here is a somewhat more terse proposal for the terminology section:

 1.1.  Terminology

    The definition for "Target" is taken from "Geopriv Requirements"
    [RFC3693].

    The term "location determination method" refers to the mechanism used
    to determine the location of a Target.  This may be something
    employed by a location information server (LIS), or by the Target
    itself.  It specifically does not refer to the location configuration
    protocol (LCP) used to deliver location information either to the
    Target or the Recipient.  This term is re-used from "GEOPRIV PIDF-LO
    Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations" [RFC5491].

    Additionally, the terms Location-by-Value (LbyV), Location-by-
    Reference (LbyR), Location Configuration Protocol, Location
    Dereference Protocol, and Location URI are re-used from "Requirements
    for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism" [RFC5808].

    "Trustworthy Location" is defined as location information that is
    inherently secure and reliable.  For location to be trustworthy, it
    must have been securely obtained from a trusted source, and must also
    have been securely conveyed.

    "Location Trust Assessment" refers to the process by which the
    reliability of location information can be assessed.  This topic is
    discussed in Section 3.4.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/ticket/9#comment:3>
ecrit <http://tools.ietf.org/ecrit/>

---

From: "ecrit issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:25:39 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  blocker                  |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  trustworthy-location     |     Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/ticket/9#comment:4>
ecrit <http://tools.ietf.org/ecrit/>