idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5222, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5222 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5222, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2006-06-20) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 18, 2020) is 1248 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ecrit R. Gellens 3 Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting 4 Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 18, 2020 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: May 22, 2021 8 Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy 9 draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01 11 Abstract 13 This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service 14 Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry established by RFC5222 15 from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows 16 standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add 17 new values. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2021. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 1. Document Scope 65 This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service 66 Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry [reg] established by 67 [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as defined 68 in [RFC8126]). This allows standards development organizations 69 (SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values. 71 2. Introduction 73 The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol, LoST [RFC5222] uses a 74 location profile when conveying location (e.g., in a mapping request 75 and a service boundary result). [RFC5222] established an IANA 76 registry of location profiles [reg], with a registry policy of 77 Standards Action. This requires a standards-track RFC for any new 78 registry values. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) is 79 an SDO that makes significant use of LoST in its emergency call 80 specifications (e.g., [NENA-i3]) and has identified a need for 81 additional location profiles. This document changes the registry 82 policy to Specification Required, allowing other SDOs such as NENA to 83 add values. 85 3. Security Considerations 87 No new security considerations are identified by this change in 88 registry policy. 90 4. IANA Considerations 92 IANA is requested to change the policy of the Location-to-Service 93 Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by 94 [RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is 95 designated by the responsible area director. The reviewer should 96 verify that: 98 o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a 99 similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope; 100 o the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not 101 being an existing profile that meets the need); 102 o the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable. 104 5. Acknowledgements 106 Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and 107 to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes 108 there not being an existing profile. 110 6. References 112 6.1. Normative References 114 [reg] "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile 115 Registry", . 118 [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. 119 Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation 120 Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008, 121 . 123 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 124 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 125 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 126 . 128 6.2. Informative references 130 [NENA-i3] National Emergency Number Association (NENA) 131 Interconnection and Security Committee, i3 Architecture 132 Working Group, , "Detailed Functional and Interface 133 Standards for the NENA i3 Solution", 2016, 134 . 136 Author's Address 137 Randall Gellens 138 Core Technology Consulting 139 US 141 Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com 142 URI: http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com