draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00.txt		draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01.txt
	ecrit R. Gellens		ecrit R. Gellens
	Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting		Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting
	Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 2, 2020		Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 18, 2020
	Intended status: Standards Track		Intended status: Standards Track
	Expires: May 6, 2021		Expires: May 22, 2021
	Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy		Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy
	draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00		draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service		This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service
	Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry established by RFC5222		Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry established by RFC5222
	from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows		from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows
	standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add		standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add
	new values.		new values.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 5 ¶
	No new security considerations are identified by this change in		No new security considerations are identified by this change in
	registry policy.		registry policy.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to change the policy of the Location-to-Service		IANA is requested to change the policy of the Location-to-Service
	Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by		Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by
	[RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is		[RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is
	designated by the responsible area director. The reviewer should		designated by the responsible area director. The reviewer should
	verify that any proposed new value:		verify that:
	o Is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a similar SDO in which location		o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a
	profiles are in scope;		similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;
	o Has a clear need (which includes there not being an existing		o the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not
	profile that meets the need);		being an existing profile that meets the need);
	o The profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.		o the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.
	5. Acknowledgements		5. Acknowledgements
	Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and		Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and
	to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes		to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes
	there not being an existing profile.		there not being an existing profile.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
End of changes. 6 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		10 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/