draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02.txt   rfc9036.txt 
ecrit R. Gellens Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Gellens
Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting Request for Comments: 9036 Core Technology Consulting
Updates: 5222 (if approved) March 25, 2021 Updates: 5222 June 2021
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: September 26, 2021 ISSN: 2070-1721
Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy Changing the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02 Registry Policy
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 IANA registry established by Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry established by
RFC5222 from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows RFC 5222 from Standards Action to Specification Required. This
standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add allows standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF
new values. to add new values.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 26, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9036.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Document Scope
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. IANA Considerations
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. References
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1. Normative References
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2. Informative References
6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address
1. Document Scope
This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profile IANA registry [reg] established
by [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as
defined in [RFC8126]). This allows standards development
organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values.
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol, LoST [RFC5222] uses a The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol [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 a standards development organization (SDO) that makes significant use
specifications (e.g., [NENA-i3]) and has identified a need for of LoST in its emergency call specifications (e.g., [NENA-i3]) and
additional location profiles. This document changes the registry has identified a need for additional location profiles. This
policy to Specification Required, allowing other SDOs such as NENA to document changes the registry policy to Specification Required,
add values. allowing other SDOs such as NENA to add values.
2. Document Scope
This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry [reg] established
by [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as
defined in [RFC8126]). This allows SDOs other than the IETF to add
new values.
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 has changed the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation
Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by (LoST) Location Profiles" registry (established by [RFC5222]) to
[RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is Specification Required. IANA has also added this document as a
designated per [RFC8126]. The reviewer should verify that: reference for the registry. The Expert Reviewer is designated per
[RFC8126]. The reviewer should verify that:
o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a * 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
being an existing profile that meets the need);
o the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.
5. Acknowledgements * the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not
being an existing profile that meets the need); and
Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and * the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.
to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes
there not being an existing profile.
6. References 5. References
6.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
[reg] "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile [reg] IANA, "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location
Registry", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost- Profiles",
location-profiles/lost-location-profiles.xhtml>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost-location-profiles>.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008, Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
6.2. Informative references 5.2. Informative References
[NENA-i3] National Emergency Number Association (NENA) [NENA-i3] National Emergency Number Association (NENA), "Detailed
Interconnection and Security Committee, i3 Architecture Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3
Working Group, , "Detailed Functional and Interface Solution", NENA i3 Solution - Stage 3, NENA-STA-
Standards for the NENA i3 Solution", 2016, 010.2-2016, September 2016,
<https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3>. <https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3>.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions and
to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes
there not being an existing profile.
Author's Address Author's Address
Randall Gellens Randall Gellens
Core Technology Consulting Core Technology Consulting
US United States of America
Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com
URI: http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com URI: http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
74 lines changed or deleted 74 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/