Media Over QUIC A. Bisht Internet-Draft Cisco Meraki Intended status: Standards Track T. Evens Expires: 10 September 2026 Cisco 9 March 2026 Geographic Location for Media over QUIC Relays draft-altanai-moq-relay-geocode-00 Abstract This document defines a mechanism for Media over QUIC (MoQ) relays to advertise their geographic location (geocode) and related path metrics. Some clients require their media data to remain locally or geo-fenced within specific jurisdictions for privacy and security compliance (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA, or sector-specific regulations). This mechanism enables service providers to track the geographic path of media packets through the relay mesh and to enforce geo-fencing policies. It supports Geo-Distributed Orchestration and Routing (GDOR), data residency compliance, latency optimization, and relay selection. The specification includes optional IATA airport codes as human-readable geographic identifiers for major relay locations. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://altanai.github.io/draft-altanai-moq-relay-geocode/draft- altanai-moq-relay-geocode.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-altanai-moq- relay-geocode/. Discussion of this document takes place on the Media Over QUIC Working Group mailing list (mailto:moq@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/moq/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/moq/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/altanai/draft-altanai-moq-relay-geocode. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 September 2026. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Relay Selection by Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Geo-Distributed Orchestration (GDOR) . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Path and Vicinity Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Metrics Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Geocode Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Primary Format: WGS84 Coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Optional: IATA Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Optional: Region and Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Relay Advertisement Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. JSON Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Example Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Integration with MoQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Vicinity and Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Great-Circle Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Path Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. Vicinity Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.3. Misuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Appendix A. Example Topology (Informative) . . . . 11 Appendix B. Appendix B. IATA Code Reference (Informative) . . . 11 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction Media over QUIC Transport (MOQT) [MoQTransport] uses a relay-based architecture where publishers push media to relays and subscribers pull from relays. Relays can be chained for CDN-like distribution, forming a mesh of interconnected nodes. In such topologies—as illustrated by deployments with multiple relays (e.g., relays A, B, C, D) connecting Home/Enterprise clients to a Service Media backend—the following questions arise: * *Where* is each relay located geographically? * *How close* are relays to each other and to clients? * *Which path* through the relay mesh minimizes latency or satisfies policy? Today, MoQ provides no standard way for relays to advertise geographic position. Clients and orchestration systems rely on external mechanisms (e.g., IP geolocation, manual configuration) that are often imprecise, inconsistent, or unavailable. This document specifies a lightweight, protocol-aligned mechanism for relays to advertise geocode and related metrics, enabling: 1. *Vicinity and path computation*: Determining physical proximity and logical paths between relays. 2. *GDOR (Geo-Distributed Orchestration/Routing)*: Making routing and placement decisions based on geography (e.g., route through EU relays for GDPR, avoid certain jurisdictions). 3. *Latency optimization*: Selecting relays with lower RTT or propagation time (PT) to the client or to upstream relays. Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 4. *Data residency and compliance*: Ensuring media flows stay within required geographic boundaries. Clients often require their data to be locally or geo-fenced for privacy and security compliance (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA). 5. *Path tracking*: Enabling service providers to track the geographic path of media packets through the relay mesh for compliance audits and geo-fencing enforcement. 1.1. Design Goals * *Minimal protocol impact*: Reuse existing MoQ catalog, metrics, or discovery mechanisms where possible. * *Interoperability*: Use standard geographic representations (WGS84, GeoJSON) and widely recognized identifiers (IATA codes). * *Extensibility*: Allow optional altitude, region codes, and path metrics (RTT, PT) without mandating them. 2. Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. *Geocode*: A representation of geographic position, typically latitude and longitude (WGS84), optionally with altitude. *Relay Vicinity*: The geographic proximity of one relay to another or to a client, expressed as distance or as a qualitative relationship (e.g., same region, same metro). *Relay Path*: A sequence of relays through which media flows from publisher to subscriber, or the logical/geographic route between relays. *GDOR (Geo-Distributed Orchestration/Routing)*: Routing and orchestration decisions that consider geographic location, including data residency, latency optimization, and jurisdictional compliance. *IATA Code*: A three-letter code assigned by the International Air Transport Association to identify airports and major metropolitan areas (e.g., JFK, LHR, FRA). Used here as an optional human-readable geographic identifier for relay locations. Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 3. Use Cases 3.1. Relay Selection by Proximity A subscriber in New York (NY) may have multiple relays available (e.g., A, B, C, D). With geocode and RTT/PT metrics, the client or an orchestration layer can select the relay that minimizes latency or satisfies geographic constraints. 3.2. Geo-Distributed Orchestration (GDOR) Some clients require their media data to remain locally or geo-fenced within specific jurisdictions for privacy and security compliance (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA, or sector-specific regulations). An operator may require that: * EU subscriber traffic flows only through EU relays. * Media for a given jurisdiction is processed within that jurisdiction. * Path selection avoids certain regions for policy or cost reasons. Geocode enables GDOR by allowing relays to advertise their jurisdiction (e.g., via country/region codes) and by allowing path computation to respect geographic boundaries. Service providers can use relay geocode and the advertised neighbor topology to *track the geographic path* of media packets as they traverse the MoQ relay mesh, supporting compliance audits and geo-fencing enforcement. 3.3. Path and Vicinity Awareness In a relay mesh (e.g., A↔B↔C↔D), knowing the geocode of each relay allows: * *Vicinity*: Computing great-circle distance or approximate propagation delay between relays. * *Path*: Understanding the geographic route (e.g., NY → Relay D → Relay A → SVC) and optimizing it. 3.4. Metrics Integration Deployments commonly measure *RTT to Relay* and *PT (Propagation Time) to Relay* as key metrics. Geocode complements these by providing a stable, policy-relevant attribute (location) that does not change with network conditions, while RTT/PT provide dynamic performance signals. Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 4. Geocode Representation 4.1. Primary Format: WGS84 Coordinates Relay geocode MUST be representable as WGS84 coordinates (as used in GeoJSON [RFC7946]): * *latitude*: Decimal degrees, -90 to 90. * *longitude*: Decimal degrees, -180 to 180. * *altitude* (optional): Meters above WGS84 ellipsoid. Example (JSON): json { "latitude": 40.6413, "longitude": -73.7781, "altitude": 4 } 4.2. Optional: IATA Code An IATA airport code MAY be included as a human-readable geographic identifier. IATA codes are widely used for airports and major metro areas and provide a compact, recognizable reference (e.g., JFK for New York, LHR for London). *Suggested IATA codes for common relay regions* (informative): Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 +======================+================+===========================+ | Region / Metro | Suggested IATA | Notes | +======================+================+===========================+ | New York (NYC metro) | JFK, LGA, EWR | Primary: JFK | | | | for NYC area | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Virginia (DC metro) | IAD, DCA | IAD for | | | | Ashburn/DC area | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | London | LHR, LGW | LHR for London | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Frankfurt | FRA | Major EU hub | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Paris | CDG | Major EU hub | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Amsterdam | AMS | Major EU hub | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Tokyo | NRT, HND | NRT for Tokyo | | | | area | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Singapore | SIN | Asia-Pacific | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | Sydney | SYD | Australia | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ | São Paulo | GRU | South America | +----------------------+----------------+---------------------------+ Table 1 The IATA code SHOULD correspond to the nearest major airport or metro area where the relay is located. It is advisory only; precise routing MUST use latitude/longitude when geographic accuracy is required. 4.3. Optional: Region and Jurisdiction For GDOR and compliance, relays MAY advertise: * *country*: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (e.g., "US", "DE"). * *subdivision*: ISO 3166-2 (e.g., "US-NY", "DE-BY") as in [RFC9388]. 5. Relay Advertisement Format Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 7] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 5.1. JSON Schema The following JSON structure defines the relay geocode advertisement. It MAY be carried in MoQ catalog extensions, metrics ([MoQMetrics]), or a dedicated discovery resource (e.g., well-known URI). json { "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", "title": "MoQ Relay Geocode", "type": "object", "required": ["relay_id", "latitude", "longitude"], "properties": { "relay_id": { "type": "string", "description": "Unique relay identifier" }, "latitude": { "type": "number", "minimum": -90, "maximum": 90 }, "longitude": { "type": "number", "minimum": -180, "maximum": 180 }, "altitude": { "type": "number", "description": "Meters above WGS84 ellipsoid" }, "iata_code": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[A-Z]{3}$", "description": "IATA airport/metro code" }, "country": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[A-Z]{2}$", "description": "ISO 3166-1 alpha- 2" }, "subdivision": { "type": "string", "description": "ISO 3166-2 subdivision" }, "rtt_ms": { "type": "number", "description": "RTT to this relay (ms), if advertised" }, "pt_ms": { "type": "number", "description": "Propagation time to relay (ms), if advertised" }, "neighbors": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "relay_id": { "type": "string" }, "rtt_ms": { "type": "number" }, "pt_ms": { "type": "number" } } }, "description": "Adjacent relays and inter-relay metrics" } } } 5.2. Example Advertisement Relay D in New York area, with path metrics: json { "relay_id": "relay-D", "latitude": 40.6413, "longitude": -73.7781, "altitude": 4, "iata_code": "JFK", "country": "US", "subdivision": "US-NY", "rtt_ms": 16, "pt_ms": 12, "neighbors": [ { "relay_id": "relay-A", "rtt_ms": 7, "pt_ms": 3 }, { "relay_id": "relay-C", "rtt_ms": 12, "pt_ms": 5 } ] } 5.3. Integration with MoQ * *Catalog*: A relay MAY include geocode in catalog metadata for namespaces or tracks it serves. * *Metrics*: Geocode MAY be part of metrics exposed per [MoQMetrics] for relay selection and monitoring. * *Discovery*: A relay MAY serve geocode at a well-known path (e.g., /.well-known/moq-relay-geocode) or via a Setup Option in SETUP. Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 8] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 The exact wire format and negotiation are left to a companion specification or a future revision of the MoQ transport or metrics documents. 6. Vicinity and Path Computation 6.1. Great-Circle Distance Given two relays with geocode (lat1, lon1) and (lat2, lon2), the approximate great-circle distance in kilometers can be computed using the Haversine formula or an equivalent. This provides a stable measure of physical proximity independent of network topology. 6.2. Path Metrics When relays advertise neighbors with rtt_ms and pt_ms, a client or orchestration system can: 1. *Build a relay graph*: Nodes = relays, edges = neighbor relationships with RTT/PT. 2. *Compute paths*: Shortest path by RTT, by PT, or by geographic distance. 3. *Apply GDOR constraints*: Filter paths to those that stay within required jurisdictions (using country, subdivision). 6.3. Vicinity Semantics * *Same metro*: Relays with the same iata_code or within ~50 km. * *Same region*: Relays with the same subdivision or country. * *Cross-border*: Path crosses country boundaries; may trigger compliance checks. 7. Security Considerations 7.1. Privacy * Geocode reveals relay location. Operators who wish to hide exact location MAY advertise only country and subdivision, or a coarse- grained geocode (e.g., rounded to 0.1°). * IATA codes are less precise than coordinates and may be preferred when exact location must not be disclosed. Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 9] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 7.2. Integrity * Geocode advertisements SHOULD be integrity-protected (e.g., over TLS as with MoQ) and, when used for compliance, SHOULD be verifiable (e.g., signed by a trusted authority). 7.3. Misuse * Adversaries could advertise false geocode to attract traffic or evade geographic restrictions. Relays SHOULD be authenticated; geocode from untrusted sources SHOULD be validated or ignored. 8. IANA Considerations This document does not require IANA actions. If a well-known URI or a MoQ parameter type is registered in the future, the appropriate IANA registry would be updated. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC7946] Butler, H., Daly, M., Doyle, A., Gillies, S., Hagen, S., and T. Schaub, "The GeoJSON Format", August 2016. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 9.2. Informative References [MoQMetrics] Jennings, C., "Metrics over MOQT", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jennings-moq-metrics-02, 2025, . [MoQTransport] IETF MOQ WG, "Media over QUIC Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-moq-transport-17, 2026, . Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 10] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 [RFC8801] "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data", July 2020. [RFC8805] "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds", August 2020. [RFC9388] "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types: Country Subdivision Code and Footprint Union", June 2023. Appendix A. Appendix A. Example Topology (Informative) The following example illustrates a typical relay mesh topology: Home/Ent (NY) Relay Mesh SVC Media MS | A --- B | \ / +----(16ms RTT)-------------> D | / \ | C --- (to SVC) * *Relay D*: JFK (NY), serves Home/Ent with 16ms RTT. * *Relay A, B, C*: Interconnected; A connects to SVC. * Geocode for each enables path selection (e.g., NY client → D → A → SVC) and GDOR (e.g., ensure D and A are in permitted jurisdictions). Appendix B. Appendix B. IATA Code Reference (Informative) IATA codes are maintained by the International Air Transport Association. A subset useful for MoQ relay identification: Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 11] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 +======+==============================+ | Code | City/Region | +======+==============================+ | JFK | New York (John F. Kennedy) | +------+------------------------------+ | LGA | New York (LaGuardia) | +------+------------------------------+ | EWR | Newark (NYC metro) | +------+------------------------------+ | IAD | Washington Dulles (Virginia) | +------+------------------------------+ | DCA | Washington Reagan | +------+------------------------------+ | LHR | London Heathrow | +------+------------------------------+ | FRA | Frankfurt | +------+------------------------------+ | CDG | Paris Charles de Gaulle | +------+------------------------------+ | AMS | Amsterdam | +------+------------------------------+ | NRT | Tokyo Narita | +------+------------------------------+ | SIN | Singapore | +------+------------------------------+ | SYD | Sydney | +------+------------------------------+ | GRU | São Paulo | +------+------------------------------+ Table 2 Operators SHOULD use the official IATA code list for authoritative mappings. Acknowledgments TODO acknowledge. Authors' Addresses Altanai Bisht Cisco Meraki Email: albisht@cisco.com Tim Evens Cisco Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 12] Internet-Draft MoQ Relay Geocode March 2026 Email: tievens@cisco.com Bisht & Evens Expires 10 September 2026 [Page 13]