draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02.txt 
ecrit R. Gellens ecrit R. Gellens
Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting
Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 18, 2020 Updates: 5222 (if approved) March 25, 2021
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 22, 2021 Expires: September 26, 2021
Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02
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 IANA registry established by
from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows RFC5222 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
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 22, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Document Scope 1. Document Scope
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 [reg] established by Translation (LoST) Location Profile IANA registry [reg] established
[RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as defined by [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as
in [RFC8126]). This allows standards development organizations defined in [RFC8126]). This allows standards development
(SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values. organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values.
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol, LoST [RFC5222] uses a The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol, LoST [RFC5222] uses a
location profile when conveying location (e.g., in a mapping request location profile when conveying location (e.g., in a mapping request
and a service boundary result). [RFC5222] established an IANA and a service boundary result). [RFC5222] established an IANA
registry of location profiles [reg], with a registry policy of registry of location profiles [reg], with a registry policy of
Standards Action. This requires a standards-track RFC for any new Standards Action. This requires a standards-track RFC for any new
registry values. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) is registry values. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) is
an SDO that makes significant use of LoST in its emergency call an SDO that makes significant use of LoST in its emergency call
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 51
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
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 per [RFC8126]. The reviewer should verify that:
verify that:
o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a
similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope; similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;
o the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not o the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not
being an existing 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
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 12 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/